On 22.01.21 07:04, Anshuman Khandual wrote:

On 1/20/21 2:07 PM, Anshuman Khandual wrote:

quoted

On 1/19/21 7:10 PM, Oscar Salvador wrote:

quoted

On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 02:33:03PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:

quoted

Minor thing, we should make up our mind if we want to call stuff
internally "memhp_" or "mhp". I prefer the latter, because it is shorter.

I would rather use the latter as well. I used that in [1].

Okay, will change all that is 'memhp' as 'mhp' instead.

quoted

MEMHP_MERGE_RESOURCE should be renamed if we agree on that.

[1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-mm/cover/20201217130758.11565-1-osalvador@suse.de/

While replacing 'memhp' as 'mhp' in this series, noticed there are
some more 'memhp' scattered around the code from earlier. A mix of
both 'memhp' and 'mhp' might not be a good idea. Hence should we
just change these remaining 'memhp' as 'mhp' as well and possibly
also MEMHP_MERGE_RESOURCE as suggested earlier, in a subsequent

As mentioned in another thread to Oscar, I already have a cleanup patch
for that one lying around, part of a bigger series. Might just send that
one out separately earlier.

clean up patch ? Would there be a problem with memhp_default_state
being a command line parameter ?

Yes, that one we should not change, to not break existing cmdlines
without good reason. We could change the
memhp_default_online_type/memhp_online_type_from_str/... thingies, though.

Feel free to send a patch, thanks!

-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb


_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel