Re: [RFC] bitmap relative operator for mempolicy extensions

["Ray Lee" <ray-lk@madrabbit.org>]

On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 8:35 AM, Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com> wrote:
> Kosaki-san wrote:
>  > i prefer another name [!relative].
>
>  Any suggestions?
>
>  I'll give the name some thought myself.
>  I like good names, and this is the right
>  time to get this one right.

'Relative map' implies a constant offset. What you have there is just
a map as relmap could be sparse (which, btw, would have been nice to
have in the example).

map_bitmap violates your naming convention, bitmap_map isn't all that
clear, bitmap_remap is taken, and while it is one-to-one and onto, I
think calling it bitmap_bijection would lose everyone except the
mathematicians. bitmap_onto? bitmap_map_onto? bitmap_map_bitmap_onto?

bitmap_read_my_kernel_doc?

Minor suggestion:
+ * and the n-th bit of @relmap is the m-th set bit of @relmap.

Perhaps s/is the/is also the/, so that the reader doesn't try to
second guess if you accidentally wrote @relmap twice instead of one of
them being @orig.