[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <AANLkTim8vaDDbdAK3Q2+LNOcYsH+VbpG+XUdD6wggNfL@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2011 08:17:46 -0800
From: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...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 8:12 AM, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> wrote:
> 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.
>
why not do it at first point ?
numa_register_meminfo() should only take care of creating correctly
struct numa_meminfo.
Yinghai
--
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