linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm/sparse: add common helper to mark all memblocks present

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1811072125280.1666@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date:   Wed, 7 Nov 2018 21:26:42 +0100 (CET)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Logan Gunthorpe <logang@...tatee.com>
cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-sh@...r.kernel.org,
        Stephen Bates <sbates@...thlin.com>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...ive.com>,
        Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm/sparse: add common helper to mark all memblocks
 present

Logan,

On Wed, 7 Nov 2018, Logan Gunthorpe wrote:
> On 2018-11-07 1:12 p.m., Andrew Morton wrote:
> >> +void __init memblocks_present(void)
> >> +{
> >> +	struct memblock_region *reg;
> >> +
> >> +	for_each_memblock(memory, reg) {
> >> +		memory_present(memblock_get_region_node(reg),
> >> +			       memblock_region_memory_base_pfn(reg),
> >> +			       memblock_region_memory_end_pfn(reg));
> >> +	}
> >> +}
> >> +
> > 
> > I don't like the name much.  To me, memblocks_present means "are
> > memblocks present" whereas this actually means "memblocks are present".
> > But whatever.  A little covering comment which describes what this
> > does and why it does it would be nice.
> 
> The same argument can be made about the existing memory_present()
> function and I think it's worth keeping the naming consistent. I'll add
> a comment and resend shortly.

Actually if both names suck, then there also is the option to rename both
instead of adding a comment to explain the suckage.

Thanks,

	tglx