Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 14 Feb 2011 08:17:46 -0800 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 15/26] x86-64, NUMA: Unify the rest of memblk registration | From | Yinghai Lu <> |
| |
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 8:12 AM, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.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@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |