From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 14:34:28 -0700 (PDT) From: David Rientjes Subject: Re: [patch 1/3] NUMA: introduce node_memory_map In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <20070612204843.491072749@sgi.com> <20070612205738.309078596@sgi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Christoph Lameter Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, ak@suse.de, Nishanth Aravamudan , Lee Schermerhorn List-ID: 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. > > But node_possible is similar to node_memory. > > Would you also prefer node_is_possible over node_possible? > > node_is_online? > I think the problem is that online and possible are adverbs and adjectives, respectively, and memory is a noun. That's why when it appears in source code, it doesn't make a lot of sense for node_memory to return a boolean value. I suspect it would return the memory, whatever that is. -- 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