From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C9E1C4741F for ; Fri, 30 Oct 2020 08:25:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06A7F22245 for ; Fri, 30 Oct 2020 08:25:21 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=suse.com header.i=@suse.com header.b="cRZ7sKHz" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1725964AbgJ3IZV (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Oct 2020 04:25:21 -0400 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:36532 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725355AbgJ3IZU (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Oct 2020 04:25:20 -0400 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.com; s=susede1; t=1604046318; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=TlqCc445gHa4XWddBXHmQOwC+ZbidmpZH/MCUItZO28=; b=cRZ7sKHzINgJBComDadhYBb4ZxkFePL4FZ8wqGbVKvc7wZACT7qdiHOQEvP0z3lmxP+/Ur gA/a5Ka0jvM9XCWI0sxD8YwZ+9cO2a1qz1GMXoZ5su6MLcg85BFBPvxi7A/4uQY66xLS3H T4mkFih8LVEbOqYF1mh0wwWRzAbrTxg= Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.221.27]) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FB0FAD31; Fri, 30 Oct 2020 08:25:18 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2020 09:25:17 +0100 From: Michal Hocko To: "Huang, Ying" Cc: Peter Zijlstra , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" , Rafael Aquini , Andrew Morton , Ingo Molnar , Mel Gorman , Rik van Riel , Johannes Weiner , Dave Hansen , Andi Kleen , David Rientjes Subject: Re: [PATCH -V2 1/2] mempolicy: Rename MPOL_F_MORON to MPOL_F_MOPRON Message-ID: <20201030082517.GD1478@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <20201028023411.15045-1-ying.huang@intel.com> <20201028023411.15045-2-ying.huang@intel.com> <20201029090421.GC17500@dhcp22.suse.cz> <87h7qcxjew.fsf@yhuang-dev.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87h7qcxjew.fsf@yhuang-dev.intel.com> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri 30-10-20 15:27:51, Huang, Ying wrote: > Michal Hocko writes: > > > On Wed 28-10-20 10:34:10, Huang Ying wrote: > >> To follow code-of-conduct better. > > > > This is changing a user visible interface and any userspace which refers > > to the existing name will fail to compile unless I am missing something. > > Although these flags are put in uapi, I found these flags are actually > internal flags used in "flags" field of struct mempolicy, they are never > used as flags for any user space API. I guess they are placed in uapi > header file to guarantee they aren't conflict with MPOL_MODE_FLAGS. You are right. I have missed that. The comment in the header even explains that. Anyway the placement is rather unusual and I think that those flags do not belong there. > > Have you checked how many applications would be affected? > > Based on above analysis, I think there is no application that will be > affected. > > > Btw I find "follow CoC better" a very weak argument without further > > explanation. > > That is the only reason for the patch. If nobody thinks the change is > necessary, I can just drop the patch. Well, to be honest I do not see any problem with the naming. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs