From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-alma10-1.taild15c8.ts.net [100.103.45.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2778B30146C for ; Tue, 2 Jun 2026 13:20:09 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1780406411; cv=none; b=NVYM0M8oRq+VC/3t3bY6SOjUdBsyCXpFYVr8WFTBMBaSLWU1zBIpx+MmWrPQXQM7mTJDkELTKX1g0D4H4yRZq3Xh/UUNcUZtQuujMUgjc/cwcIhHAFHTuJXu8NH6ZYOUQ+j6ZDhtIPqOrpgaR9k9hwYeqSx8OrB1aBPXU6QlNoQ= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1780406411; c=relaxed/simple; bh=1cEHD8nSkHLXUrfJUQ0bEcnqw4nUAEkersbwnBMKcP0=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=rhbNOpcDePGskc+Vmt3StEu2cBiAzr51WLO183FxGngAfNzBLmahOETa46q0WQvyCFPzWeI+iRXKC3k6aAUz5tzKA3W6rthaWyPlwwy5+t70u30axpkHPwimVJNRNRE6ZYYvUve36k9CrKU+DsJFnnb1oQQYzS1uEcVjx+h1U9A= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=TiCwRUGp; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="TiCwRUGp" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2F0DE1F00893; Tue, 2 Jun 2026 13:20:05 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1780406409; bh=OoiGlH/r+jJ1Fp71foigp+gKSr0VX5V5p1UlBTjIHRI=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=TiCwRUGputNHPiFoK4yKcQ6oN01jRdmAcp3CdX792iHHCMwJMptrcP5VHqm7cYS3F rQKQ703VtMw0lHjkdsmzompchUysfmmfXFPZP93HLLW2cYalI0PE2rTV97sHBOhWG9 EZRJ8IY44C/+b5lgu5GyO0ytqz3RvjyKaccf9hWfSpqJe5Nf2521fs3JmSGWFJScYa MQzBMNAfHzf90cXhrkzpcjY6q2ZRuoadMGdFVXQozYiVc+LNfXzmur+b6tqyJ2ZAPo IRMN1VeB5o5jKqBrM3pA5di0CEUPWQdeCHANQnmamGu54mg88ldiLcpfmsw/0iy2Rb fmkwDmzqrIkfg== Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2026 16:20:02 +0300 From: Mike Rapoport To: Pratyush Yadav Cc: Pasha Tatashin , Alexander Graf , Muchun Song , Oscar Salvador , David Hildenbrand , Andrew Morton , Jason Miu , kexec@lists.infradead.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/12] memblock: introduce MEMBLOCK_KHO_SCRATCH_EXT Message-ID: References: <20260429133928.850721-1-pratyush@kernel.org> <20260429133928.850721-10-pratyush@kernel.org> <2vxzecjhc2s8.fsf@kernel.org> <2vxzse7j7ai9.fsf@kernel.org> <2vxztsrlds0d.fsf@kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <2vxztsrlds0d.fsf@kernel.org> On Tue, Jun 02, 2026 at 02:52:02PM +0200, Pratyush Yadav wrote: > On Sun, May 31 2026, Mike Rapoport wrote: > >> > > >> > If we want to keep the naming aligned with the existing codebase for now: > >> > MEMBLOCK_KHO_SCRATCH -> original scratch > >> > MEMBLOCK_KHO_UNPRESERVED -> for the new memory (instead of SCRATCH_EXT) > >> > >> UNPRESERVED sounds good to me. I will use that for the next revision > >> unless Mike objects. > > > > Can we make it shorter? ;-) > > > > UNPRESERVED makes sense, although I'd love to completely remove KHO_ notion > > and make the name reflect how it's used by memblock. I was toying with > > PREFERRED instead of SCRATCH, but it didn't feel right enough. > > With two of them that surely won't work :) > > I don't think you really can remove KHO_ notion. These memory regions > only make sense on a KHO boot, and won't exist otherwise. And PREFERRED > sounds like a suggestion/priority hint, not a hard limit. "With KHO > boot, you can _only_ use PREFERRED memory", doesn't sound right... > > I think MEMBLOCK_KHO_BOOTMEM for scratch and MEMBLOCK_KHO_NOPRESERVE > (which I think is a tiny bit better than UNPRESERVED) for scratch_ext > are my top picks. To make it shorter, perhaps MEMBLOCK_KHO_NOPRSRV, in > similar fashion to RSRV_KERN? There are a couple of unrelated 'bootmem' things in the kernel, adding another one shouldn't hurt :) I like MEMBLOCK_KHO_BOOTMEM and MEMBLOCK_KHO_NOPRSRV the most. > >> would like this series to not get muddled in the naming discussion. I > >> will use UNPRESERVED for the new concept in v2 though. > > > > That might warrant v3 even if everything else is perfect :) > > I can live with that. As long as we can agree on the easy part (the > code), I don't mind doing another version for the hard part (the naming) > ;-) It makes sense to keep KHO_SCRATCH for now and use MEMBLOCK_KHO_NOPRSRV for the new one to begin with. And then we can ask an LLM do the renaming. > -- > Regards, > Pratyush Yadav -- Sincerely yours, Mike.