From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, brgerst@gmail.com,
gorcunov@gmail.com, shaohui.zheng@intel.com, rientjes@google.com,
mingo@elte.hu, hpa@linux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 15/26] x86-64, NUMA: Unify the rest of memblk registration
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2011 17:12:49 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110214161249.GV18742@htj.dyndns.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTin0C2AhtHm6K0av2N4pQxLvK_Fc+4w12Qg_QRkZ@mail.gmail.com>
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.
Thanks.
--
tejun
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-02-14 16:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 77+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-02-12 17:10 [PATCHSET x86/numa] x86-64, NUMA: bring sanity to NUMA configuration Tejun Heo
2011-02-12 17:10 ` [PATCH 01/26] x86-64, NUMA: Make dummy node initialization path similar to non-dummy ones Tejun Heo
2011-02-12 17:52 ` Yinghai Lu
2011-02-12 17:10 ` [PATCH 02/26] x86-64, NUMA: Simplify hotplug node handling in acpi_numa_memory_affinity_init() Tejun Heo
2011-02-12 17:47 ` Yinghai Lu
2011-02-12 17:56 ` Tejun Heo
2011-02-12 18:04 ` Yinghai Lu
2011-02-12 18:06 ` Tejun Heo
2011-02-12 18:13 ` Yinghai Lu
2011-02-14 11:25 ` Tejun Heo
2011-02-14 16:12 ` Yinghai Lu
2011-02-12 17:10 ` [PATCH 03/26] x86-64, NUMA: Drop @start/last_pfn from initmem_init() Tejun Heo
2011-02-12 17:58 ` Yinghai Lu
2011-02-12 18:03 ` Tejun Heo
2011-02-14 13:50 ` [PATCH UPDATED 03/26] x86, NUMA: Drop @start/last_pfn from initmem_init() initmem_init() Tejun Heo
2011-02-14 14:20 ` Ingo Molnar
2011-02-14 14:58 ` Tejun Heo
2011-02-14 19:03 ` Yinghai Lu
2011-02-14 19:31 ` Tejun Heo
2011-02-15 2:29 ` Ingo Molnar
2011-02-12 17:10 ` [PATCH 04/26] x86-64, NUMA: Unify {acpi|amd}_{numa_init|scan_nodes}() arguments and return values Tejun Heo
2011-02-12 18:39 ` Yinghai Lu
2011-02-14 11:29 ` Tejun Heo
2011-02-14 16:14 ` Yinghai Lu
2011-02-14 16:18 ` Tejun Heo
2011-02-14 18:00 ` Yinghai Lu
2011-02-12 17:10 ` [PATCH 05/26] x86-64, NUMA: Wrap acpi_numa_init() so that failure can be indicated by return value Tejun Heo
2011-02-12 17:10 ` [PATCH 06/26] x86-64, NUMA: Move *_numa_init() invocations into initmem_init() Tejun Heo
2011-02-14 6:10 ` Ankita Garg
2011-02-14 11:09 ` Tejun Heo
2011-02-14 13:51 ` [PATCH UPDATED 06/26] x86, " Tejun Heo
2011-02-14 14:21 ` Ingo Molnar
2011-02-12 17:10 ` [PATCH 07/26] x86-64, NUMA: Restructure initmem_init() Tejun Heo
2011-02-12 17:10 ` [PATCH 08/26] x86-64, NUMA: Use common {cpu|mem}_nodes_parsed Tejun Heo
2011-02-12 17:10 ` [PATCH 09/26] x86-64, NUMA: Remove local variable found from amd_numa_init() Tejun Heo
2011-02-12 17:10 ` [PATCH 10/26] x86-64, NUMA: Move apicid to numa mapping initialization from amd_scan_nodes() to amd_numa_init() Tejun Heo
2011-02-14 22:59 ` Cyrill Gorcunov
2011-02-15 9:36 ` Tejun Heo
2011-02-15 17:31 ` Cyrill Gorcunov
2011-02-15 17:54 ` Yinghai Lu
2011-02-15 18:01 ` Cyrill Gorcunov
2011-02-15 18:27 ` Cyrill Gorcunov
2011-02-15 19:41 ` Yinghai Lu
2011-02-12 17:10 ` [PATCH 11/26] x86-64, NUMA: Use common numa_nodes[] Tejun Heo
2011-02-12 17:10 ` [PATCH 12/26] x86-64, NUMA: Kill {acpi|amd}_get_nodes() Tejun Heo
2011-02-12 17:10 ` [PATCH 13/26] x86-64, NUMA: Factor out memblk handling into numa_{add|register}_memblk() Tejun Heo
2011-02-12 17:10 ` [PATCH 14/26] x86-64, NUMA: Unify use of memblk in all init methods Tejun Heo
2011-02-12 17:10 ` [PATCH 15/26] x86-64, NUMA: Unify the rest of memblk registration Tejun Heo
2011-02-13 0:45 ` Yinghai Lu
2011-02-14 11:32 ` Tejun Heo
2011-02-14 16:08 ` Yinghai Lu
2011-02-14 16:12 ` Tejun Heo [this message]
2011-02-14 16:17 ` Yinghai Lu
2011-02-14 16:22 ` Tejun Heo
2011-02-14 18:14 ` Yinghai Lu
2011-02-14 18:27 ` Tejun Heo
2011-02-14 19:07 ` Yinghai Lu
2011-02-14 19:30 ` Tejun Heo
2011-02-14 19:35 ` Yinghai Lu
2011-02-15 9:11 ` Tejun Heo
2011-02-15 9:43 ` Ingo Molnar
2011-02-15 16:49 ` Tejun Heo
2011-02-16 8:41 ` Ingo Molnar
2011-02-16 8:48 ` Ingo Molnar
2011-02-16 9:01 ` Tejun Heo
2011-02-16 9:31 ` Ingo Molnar
2011-02-12 17:10 ` [PATCH 16/26] x86-64, NUMA: Kill {acpi|amd|dummy}_scan_nodes() Tejun Heo
2011-02-12 17:10 ` [PATCH 17/26] x86-64, NUMA: Remove %NULL @nodeids handling from compute_hash_shift() Tejun Heo
2011-02-12 17:10 ` [PATCH 18/26] x86-64, NUMA: Introduce struct numa_meminfo Tejun Heo
2011-02-12 17:10 ` [PATCH 19/26] x86-64, NUMA: Separate out numa_cleanup_meminfo() Tejun Heo
2011-02-12 17:10 ` [PATCH 20/26] x86-64, NUMA: make numa_cleanup_meminfo() prettier Tejun Heo
2011-02-12 17:10 ` [PATCH 21/26] x86-64, NUMA: consolidate and improve memblk sanity checks Tejun Heo
2011-02-12 17:10 ` [PATCH 22/26] x86-64, NUMA: Add common find_node_by_addr() Tejun Heo
2011-02-12 17:11 ` [PATCH 23/26] x86-64, NUMA: kill numa_nodes[] Tejun Heo
2011-02-12 17:11 ` [PATCH 24/26] x86-64, NUMA: Rename cpu_nodes_parsed to numa_nodes_parsed Tejun Heo
2011-02-12 17:11 ` [PATCH 25/26] x86-64, NUMA: Kill mem_nodes_parsed Tejun Heo
2011-02-12 17:11 ` [PATCH 26/26] x86-64, NUMA: Implement generic node distance handling Tejun Heo
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20110214161249.GV18742@htj.dyndns.org \
--to=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=brgerst@gmail.com \
--cc=gorcunov@gmail.com \
--cc=hpa@linux.intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
--cc=shaohui.zheng@intel.com \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
--cc=yinghai@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®