Re: [PATCH] mm: sparse: clarify a variable name and its value

[Leesoo Ahn <lsahn@ooseel.net>]

2024년 6월 10일 (월) 오후 3:08, Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>님이 작성:
>
> On Mon, Jun 10, 2024 at 12:39:28PM +0900, Leesoo Ahn wrote:
> > 2024년 6월 10일 (월) 오전 6:03, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>님이 작성:
> > >
> > > On Sun,  9 Jun 2024 00:21:14 +0900 Leesoo Ahn <lsahn@ooseel.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Setting 'limit' variable to 0 might seem like it means "no limit". But
> > > > in the memblock API, 0 actually means the 'MEMBLOCK_ALLOC_ACCESSIBLE'
> > > > enum, which limits the physical address range based on
> > > > 'memblock.current_limit'. This can be confusing.
> > >
> > > Does it?  From my reading, this meaning applies to the range end
> > > address, in memblock_find_in_range_node()?  If your interpretation is
> > > correct, this should be documented in the relevant memblock kerneldoc.
>
> It is :-P
>
> > IMO, regardless of memblock documentation, it better uses
> > MEMBLOCK_ALLOC_ACCESSIBLE enum instead of 0 as a value for the variable.
>
> Using MEMBLOCK_ALLOC_ACCESSIBLE is a slight improvement, but renaming the
> variable is not, IMO.

I will post v2 as it replaces 0 with MEMBLOCK_ALLOC_ACCESSIBLE without
modifying the variable.

Thank you, Andrew and Mike for the reviews.

>
> > Best regards,
> > Leesoo
>
> --
> Sincerely yours,
> Mike.

Best regards,
Leesoo.