From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F4171C282DD for ; Wed, 8 Jan 2020 19:00:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9F4220678 for ; Wed, 8 Jan 2020 19:00:03 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.i=@intel-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.b="s9NJQtCq" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729774AbgAHTAD (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Jan 2020 14:00:03 -0500 Received: from mail-ot1-f68.google.com ([209.85.210.68]:36542 "EHLO mail-ot1-f68.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1729669AbgAHTAC (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Jan 2020 14:00:02 -0500 Received: by mail-ot1-f68.google.com with SMTP id 19so4652829otz.3 for ; Wed, 08 Jan 2020 11:00:02 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=intel-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=XKG1nbVwzj/tRpstff6fH6LSUuwV4sjHhIFUgWIlV+U=; b=s9NJQtCqnectin8Ti+6PJbbfj1iVC29kijEEVzBm9eYM0xqovEdSIvUBRa5QV+2Qzf uMjhO+nADZCdf/v+dinki4tHGe/eBYjmY78A0B9gngLOIJZSvsYSGQUcFghNBkzajBm+ 002VIJLs2HYb6/7/565YtsSdwQ7BoFsW7F2g/8JhRZm5aaupLnZ+WjxKHOUtdugZXa+v M5Cfg0EYtVYHOoLi8prNlcRFGlvf0CrScWNFvhySDu/GUL/m4BLe/M+OqS31fpVqrUm6 /h5oOCVTEniuxvpSTmawQh4xsO4jXbtbwJSxpi9ba8XLCoKCbuSjDDKpfn0F41JYkU5K 2q8A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=XKG1nbVwzj/tRpstff6fH6LSUuwV4sjHhIFUgWIlV+U=; b=ob+s+646v7avd7ajQEAaDtjk2QWrNFlPrVWekif75hMHduHtyMqtZcIKYvqIJ09fTX IwgOg/NI2wA3lw+mTwIBFUqhzq8xtv2Cs+ROY7EcuZI2tUy6LfzIbfw5IQED+129CrJg hpakN1qTKHY41hGxhoTkTNyD2kWbCvArjdnRFCN0zeT8KfGj8dFZ3kJ9gJr00bBAKEDN 9C0b3GgPmLWWwjB4e/0b2ZJnofIG2s/HcQweHxOHIHf83L60B637MuxW/G2LH9ODTKfT dMoQULyYi8s7CZFBDYCM04hFEZgM+JA8hqP/XA1RsXnwP/RF1r21Hh7wMtpcgdWCPzXV CV2A== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWKLm+zW1kai8eQ0Q9RR+TWkqAmX9Vttd2PQu19MB2pTutHqkyy Ya5FTUNOMJg6JyhHn9p9C2HWyVAZPvqXPO9u3ML8Sg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxCuOUFRmTIFvW4iH38UfBo5T8KUr6T2q9RXS3eopOSB7fDf5LWtiL93/r45iWPoVq/UfuDWeRs67v8mZX9sdI= X-Received: by 2002:a9d:68d3:: with SMTP id i19mr4939869oto.71.1578510001998; Wed, 08 Jan 2020 11:00:01 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20200107205959.7575-1-logang@deltatee.com> <20200107205959.7575-3-logang@deltatee.com> <3e432695-e3a9-2aae-e9f5-1b6454886c06@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: From: Dan Williams Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2020 10:59:51 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/8] mm/memory_hotplug: Rename mhp_restrictions to mhp_modifiers To: Logan Gunthorpe Cc: David Hildenbrand , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Linux ARM , linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev , linux-s390 , Linux-sh , platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org, Linux MM , Michal Hocko , Andrew Morton , Christoph Hellwig , Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , Borislav Petkov , Dave Hansen , Andy Lutomirski , Peter Zijlstra , Eric Badger Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 9:17 AM Logan Gunthorpe wrote: > > > > On 2020-01-08 5:28 a.m., David Hildenbrand wrote: > > On 07.01.20 21:59, Logan Gunthorpe wrote: > >> The mhp_restrictions struct really doesn't specify anything resembling > >> a restriction anymore so rename it to be mhp_modifiers. > > > > I wonder if something like "mhp_params" would be even better. It's > > essentially just a way to avoid changing call chains rough-out all archs > > whenever we want to add a new parameter. > > Sure, that does sound a bit nicer to me. I can change it for v3. Oh, I was just about to chime in to support "modifiers" because I would expect all parameters to folded into a "params" struct. The modifiers seem to be limited to the set of items that are only considered in a non-default / expert memory hotplug use cases.