From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 15:26:25 -0700 (PDT) From: Christoph Lameter Subject: Re: [patch 1/3] NUMA: introduce node_memory_map In-Reply-To: <20070612214249.GI3798@us.ibm.com> Message-ID: References: <20070612204843.491072749@sgi.com> <20070612205738.309078596@sgi.com> <20070612213612.GH3798@us.ibm.com> <20070612214249.GI3798@us.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Nishanth Aravamudan Cc: David Rientjes , akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, ak@suse.de, pj@sgi.com, Lee Schermerhorn List-ID: On Tue, 12 Jun 2007, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote: > is not intuitive at all. And we've already admitted that a few of the > macros in there are inconsistent already :) I do not want to add another inconsistency. if (node_memory(node)) is pretty clear as far as I can tell. Some of the macros in include/linux/nodemask.h are inconsistent. How can we make those consistent. Could you come up with a consistent naming scheme? Add the explanation for that scheme. But that should be a separate patch. And the patch would have to change all uses of those macros in the kernel source tree. -- 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