| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2011 17:12:49 +0100 From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> To: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org, brgerst@...il.com, gorcunov@...il.com, shaohui.zheng@...el.com, rientjes@...gle.com, mingo@...e.hu, hpa@...ux.intel.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 15/26] x86-64, NUMA: Unify the rest of memblk registration On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 08:08:08AM -0800, Yinghai Lu wrote: > > No, I don't think so. If you don't like the function name, let's > > change the name. I think it's better to put all registrations there. > > Later in the series but function is changed to deal with struct > > numa_meminfo anyway so maybe it's better to rename it to > > numa_register_meminfo(). > > No, I don't like ***_register_*** take care of calling setup_bootmem. Yeah, then, please go ahead and suggest the name you want. I don't really care about the name itself, but I don't want to put it directly in initmem_init() because with double calling and extra loop added later it gets nested too deep. For now, let's move on, okay? We can argue about this for days but there's no clear technical [dis]advantage one way or the other and falls squarely in the scope of bikeshedding. Thanks. -- tejun -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists