lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Sep]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 6/6] mem-hotplug: Introduce movablenode boot option
Hello toshi-san

On 09/25/2013 12:00 AM, Toshi Kani wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-09-24 at 23:24 +0800, Zhang Yanfei wrote:
>> Hello tejun,
>>
>> On 09/24/2013 09:31 PM, Zhang Yanfei wrote:
>>>> This came up during earlier review but never was addressed. Is
>>>>> "movablenode" the right name? Shouldn't it be something which
>>>>> explicitly shows that it's to prepare for memory hotplug? Also, maybe
>>>>> the above param should generate warning if CONFIG_MOVABLE_NODE isn't
>>>>> enabled?
>>> hmmm...as for the option name, if this option is set, it means, the kernel
>>> could support the functionality that a whole node is the so called
>>> movable node, which only has ZONE MOVABLE zone in it. So we choose
>>> to name the parameter "movablenode".
>>>
>>> As for the warning, will add it.
>>
>> I am now preparing the v5 version. Only in this patch we haven't come to an
>> agreement. So as for the boot option name, after my explanation, do you still
>> have the objection? Or you could suggest a good name for us, that'll be
>> very thankful:)
>
> I do not think the granularity has to stay as a node, and this option
> does nothing to with other devices that may be included in a node. So,
> how about using "movablemem"?
>

As I explained before, we use movablenode to mean a node could only have
a MOVABLE zone from the memory aspect. So I still think movablenode seems
better than movablemem. movablemem seems vaguer here....

--
Thanks.
Zhang Yanfei


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-09-24 18:21    [W:0.041 / U:1.476 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site