From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756072AbbAWREI (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Jan 2015 12:04:08 -0500 Received: from gum.cmpxchg.org ([85.214.110.215]:48973 "EHLO gum.cmpxchg.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752117AbbAWREF (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Jan 2015 12:04:05 -0500 Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 12:03:53 -0500 From: Johannes Weiner To: Tejun Heo Cc: Michal Hocko , Andrew Morton , Vladimir Davydov , Greg Thelen , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , Cgroups , lkml Subject: Re: [patch] mm: memcontrol: default hierarchy interface for memory fix - "none" Message-ID: <20150123170353.GA12036@phnom.home.cmpxchg.org> References: <1421508107-29377-1-git-send-email-hannes@cmpxchg.org> <20150120133711.GI25342@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20150120143002.GB11181@phnom.home.cmpxchg.org> <20150120143644.GL25342@dhcp22.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 12:00:11PM -0500, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, > > On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 9:36 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Tue 20-01-15 09:30:02, Johannes Weiner wrote: > > [...] > >> Another possibility would be "infinity", > > > > yes infinity definitely sounds much better to me. > > FWIW, I prefer "max". It's shorter and clear enough. I don't think > there's anything ambiguous about "the memory max limit is at its > maximum". No need to introduce a different term. While I don't feel too strongly, I do agree with this. I don't see much potential for confusion, and "max" is much shorter and sweeter. Michal?