Re: [patch 1/3] NUMA: introduce node_memory_map

[Nishanth Aravamudan <nacc@us.ibm.com>]

On 12.06.2007 [14:10:44 -0700], David Rientjes wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 12 Jun 2007, David Rientjes wrote:
> > 
> > > >   * int node_online(node)		Is some node online?
> > > >   * int node_possible(node)		Is some node possible?
> > > > + * int node_memory(node)		Does a node have memory?
> > > >   *
> > > 
> > > This name doesn't make sense; wouldn't node_has_memory() be better?
> > 
> > node_set_has_memory and node_clear_has_memory sounds a bit strange.
> > 
> 
> This will probably be one of those things that people see in the
> source and have to look up everytime.  node_has_memory() is
> straight-forward and to the point.

Indeed, I did and (I like to think) I helped write the patches :)

Why not just make the boolean sensible?

We can keep

node_set_memory()
node_clear_memory()

but change node_memory() to node_has_memory() ?

Thanks,
Nish

-- 
Nishanth Aravamudan <nacc@us.ibm.com>
IBM Linux Technology Center

--
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: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>