From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <4379B0A7.3090803@yahoo.com.au> Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 20:55:51 +1100 From: Nick Piggin MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/05] mm rationalize __alloc_pages ALLOC_* flag names References: <20051114040329.13951.39891.sendpatchset@jackhammer.engr.sgi.com> <20051114040353.13951.82602.sendpatchset@jackhammer.engr.sgi.com> <4379A399.1080407@yahoo.com.au> <20051115010303.6bc04222.akpm@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: <20051115010303.6bc04222.akpm@osdl.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Andrew Morton Cc: pj@sgi.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Simon.Derr@bull.net, clameter@sgi.com, rohit.seth@intel.com List-ID: Andrew Morton wrote: > Nick Piggin wrote: > >>Paul Jackson wrote: >> >>>Rationalize mm/page_alloc.c:__alloc_pages() ALLOC flag names. >>> >> >>I don't really see the need for this. The names aren't >>clearly better, and the downside is that they move away >>from the terminlogy we've been using in the page allocator >>for the past few years. > > > I thought they were heaps better, actually. > Some? Alot? Musthave? To me it just changed the manner in which the hands are waving. Actually, I like the current names because ALLOC_HIGH explicitly is used for __GFP_HIGH allocations, and MUSTHAVE is not really an improvement on NO_WATERMARKS. However if you'd really like to change the names, I'd prefer them to be more consistent, eg: ALLOC_DIP_NONE ALLOC_DIP_LESS ALLOC_DIP_MORE ALLOC_DIP_FULL -- SUSE Labs, Novell Inc. Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com -- 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