From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <466FB590.7080201@shadowen.org> Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 10:14:56 +0100 From: Andy Whitcroft MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [patch 1/3] NUMA: introduce node_memory_map References: <20070612204843.491072749@sgi.com> <20070612205738.309078596@sgi.com> <20070612213612.GH3798@us.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <20070612213612.GH3798@us.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Nishanth Aravamudan Cc: David Rientjes , Christoph Lameter , akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, ak@suse.de, Lee Schermerhorn List-ID: Nishanth Aravamudan wrote: > 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() node_clear_memory() sounds like something to memset all of that node's memory or something. > but change node_memory() to node_has_memory() ? -apw -- 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