From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ob0-f174.google.com (mail-ob0-f174.google.com [209.85.214.174]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C819B82F99 for ; Thu, 24 Dec 2015 12:09:22 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-ob0-f174.google.com with SMTP id 18so188735514obc.2 for ; Thu, 24 Dec 2015 09:09:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from g9t5008.houston.hp.com (g9t5008.houston.hp.com. [15.240.92.66]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id d14si34549812oic.111.2015.12.24.09.09.22 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 24 Dec 2015 09:09:22 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <1450976937.19330.11.camel@hpe.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/11] resource: Add System RAM resource type From: Toshi Kani Date: Thu, 24 Dec 2015 10:08:57 -0700 In-Reply-To: <1450923815.19330.4.camel@hpe.com> References: <20151216122642.GE29775@pd.tnic> <1450280642.29051.76.camel@hpe.com> <20151216154916.GF29775@pd.tnic> <1450283759.20148.11.camel@hpe.com> <20151216174523.GH29775@pd.tnic> <20151216181712.GJ29775@pd.tnic> <1450302758.20148.75.camel@hpe.com> <20151222113422.GE3728@pd.tnic> <1450814672.10450.83.camel@hpe.com> <20151223142349.GG30213@pd.tnic> <1450923815.19330.4.camel@hpe.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Borislav Petkov Cc: Dan Williams , Andrew Morton , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Linux MM , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Linus Torvalds , "Rafael J. Wysocki" On Wed, 2015-12-23 at 19:23 -0700, Toshi Kani wrote: > On Wed, 2015-12-23 at 15:23 +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 01:04:32PM -0700, Toshi Kani wrote: > : > > > I agree that we can add new interfaces with the type check. This > > > 'type' > > > may need some clarification since it is an assigned type, which is > > > different from I/O resource type. That is, "System RAM" is an I/O > > > resource type (i.e. IORESOURCE_SYSTEM_RAM), but "Crash kernel" is an > > > assigned type to a particular range of System RAM. A range may be > > > associated with multiple names, so as multiple assigned types. For > > > lack of a better idea, I may call it 'assign_type'. I am open for a > > > better name. > > > > Or assigned_type or named_type or so... > > > > I think we should avoid calling it "type" completely in order to avoid > > confusion with the IORESOURCE_* types and call it "desc" or so to mean > > description, sort, etc, because the name is also a description of the > > resource to a certain degree... > > Agreed. I will use 'desc'. > > > > OK, I will try to convert the existing callers with the new > > > interfaces. > > > > Either that or add the new interfaces, use them in your use case, add > > big fat comments explaining that people should use those from now on > > when searching by name and add a check to checkpatch to catch future > > mis-uses... > > Sounds good. I will look into it. As for checkpatch, I noticed that commit 9c0ece069b3 removed "feature -removal.txt" file, and checkpatch removed this check in commit 78e3f1f01d2. checkpatch does not have such check since then. So, I am inclined not to add this check back to checkpatch. Thanks, -Toshi -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org