From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D822C433ED for ; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 12:58:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 171616117A for ; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 12:58:46 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 171616117A Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=suse.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 8327E6B0096; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 08:58:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 7E2A66B0099; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 08:58:45 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 65B6D6B009A; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 08:58:45 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0149.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.149]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47BE56B0096 for ; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 08:58:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin06.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay05.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 043FB1801C65E for ; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 12:58:45 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 78030977010.06.97ADC00 Received: from mx2.suse.de (mx2.suse.de [195.135.220.15]) by imf17.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D0DD40002C2 for ; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 12:58:42 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.com; s=susede1; t=1618405123; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=1LdKFu9B1ttnJUcjp1tP1KvNZ4bFQ4ZCDRyCzjQcBJc=; b=gymcCEr9pp2rQ6NTQyeeLND8/5HtaCElUhpTS/yJwi8+tpPw1EsvMmna67RzPmrhaycDs4 uCRWlfwby7B9PUhzi4+7Q/bfXDBm0MHx1doeKikLggVnaIR1sJYeIx87txIsMK3umvTES1 mDyGXDFIvs4aRRwWaPxtVkqaoCgnH3g= Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.221.27]) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80AA6AFCF; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 12:58:43 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2021 14:58:42 +0200 From: Michal Hocko To: Feng Tang Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , Andrea Arcangeli , David Rientjes , Mel Gorman , Mike Kravetz , Randy Dunlap , Vlastimil Babka , Dave Hansen , Ben Widawsky , Andi Kleen , Dan Williams Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 06/13] mm/mempolicy: kill v.preferred_nodes Message-ID: References: <1615952410-36895-1-git-send-email-feng.tang@intel.com> <1615952410-36895-7-git-send-email-feng.tang@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1615952410-36895-7-git-send-email-feng.tang@intel.com> X-Rspamd-Server: rspam05 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4D0DD40002C2 X-Stat-Signature: wg63ns1hzjcxhwmiq1jzfqjh9htkk66c Received-SPF: none (suse.com>: No applicable sender policy available) receiver=imf17; identity=mailfrom; envelope-from=""; helo=mx2.suse.de; client-ip=195.135.220.15 X-HE-DKIM-Result: pass/pass X-HE-Tag: 1618405122-417026 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Wed 17-03-21 11:40:03, Feng Tang wrote: > From: Ben Widawsky > > Now that preferred_nodes is just a mask, and policies are mutually > exclusive, there is no reason to have a separate mask. > > This patch is optional. It definitely helps clean up code in future > patches, but there is no functional difference to leaving it with the > previous name. I do believe it helps demonstrate the exclusivity of the > fields. Yeah, let's just do it after the whole thing is merged. The separation helps a bit to review the code at this stage because it is so much easier to grep for preferred_nodes than nodes. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs