From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com (d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.106]) by e33.co.us.ibm.com (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j35IVu4I399636 for ; Tue, 5 Apr 2005 14:31:56 -0400 Received: from d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (d03av02.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.168]) by d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.10/NCO/VER6.6) with ESMTP id j35IVtHO168488 for ; Tue, 5 Apr 2005 12:31:55 -0600 Received: from d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j35IVtZc019913 for ; Tue, 5 Apr 2005 12:31:55 -0600 Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2005 11:26:20 -0700 From: Chandra Seetharaman Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] CKRM: Add limit support for mem controller Message-ID: <20050405182620.GF32645@chandralinux.beaverton.ibm.com> References: <20050402031346.GD23284@chandralinux.beaverton.ibm.com> <1112623850.24676.8.camel@localhost> <20050405174239.GD32645@chandralinux.beaverton.ibm.com> <1112723942.19430.77.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1112723942.19430.77.camel@localhost> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Dave Hansen Cc: ckrm-tech@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-mm List-ID: On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 10:59:02AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote: > On Tue, 2005-04-05 at 10:42 -0700, Chandra Seetharaman wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 07:10:50AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote: > > > "DONTCARE" is also multiplexed. It means "no guarantee" or "no limit" > > > depending on context. I don't think it would hurt to have one variable > > > for each of these cases. > > > > It is agnostic... and the name doesn't suggest one way or other... so, I > > don't see a problem in multiplexing it. > > I think that variable names should be as suggestive as possible. *So* > suggestive that I know what they actually do. :) I think you mean the macro... It does mean it.... it is a DONT CARE :) be it limit or guarantee... > > > > What does "impl" stand for, anyway? implied? implicit? implemented? > > > > I meant implicit... you can also say implied.... will add in comments to > > the dats structure definition. > > How about changing the name of the structure member? Comments suck. you mean explicit name like implicit_guarantee ? if comments suck, IMHO, impl_guar is good enough an option for a field that holds implicit guarantee. > > -- Dave > -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Chandra Seetharaman | Be careful what you choose.... - sekharan@us.ibm.com | .......you may get it. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- -- 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: aart@kvack.org