[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YHbnAii50shoetsp@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2021 14:58:42 +0200
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
To: Feng Tang <feng.tang@...el.com>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Ben Widawsky <ben.widawsky@...el.com>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 06/13] mm/mempolicy: kill v.preferred_nodes
On Wed 17-03-21 11:40:03, Feng Tang wrote:
> From: Ben Widawsky <ben.widawsky@...el.com>
>
> Now that preferred_nodes is just a mask, and policies are mutually
> exclusive, there is no reason to have a separate mask.
>
> This patch is optional. It definitely helps clean up code in future
> patches, but there is no functional difference to leaving it with the
> previous name. I do believe it helps demonstrate the exclusivity of the
> fields.
Yeah, let's just do it after the whole thing is merged. The separation
helps a bit to review the code at this stage because it is so much
easier to grep for preferred_nodes than nodes.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists