From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pl0-f72.google.com (mail-pl0-f72.google.com [209.85.160.72]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1E436B0003 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 14:13:01 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-pl0-f72.google.com with SMTP id h33so243324plh.19 for ; Thu, 08 Feb 2018 11:13:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-sor-f41.google.com (mail-sor-f41.google.com. [209.85.220.41]) by mx.google.com with SMTPS id l1-v6sor199985pld.49.2018.02.08.11.13.00 for (Google Transport Security); Thu, 08 Feb 2018 11:13:00 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2018 11:12:48 -0800 (PST) From: Hugh Dickins Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/migrate: Rename various page allocation helper functions In-Reply-To: <5458c2c9-3534-c00d-7abf-3315debbf896@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Message-ID: References: <20180204065816.6885-1-khandual@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <5458c2c9-3534-c00d-7abf-3315debbf896@linux.vnet.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Anshuman Khandual Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, mhocko@suse.com, hughd@google.com On Thu, 8 Feb 2018, Anshuman Khandual wrote: > On 02/04/2018 12:28 PM, Anshuman Khandual wrote: > > Allocation helper functions for migrate_pages() remmain scattered with > > similar names making them really confusing. Rename these functions based > > on type of the intended migration. Function alloc_misplaced_dst_page() > > remains unchanged as its highly specialized. The renamed functions are > > listed below. Functionality of migration remains unchanged. > > > > 1. alloc_migrate_target -> new_page_alloc > > 2. new_node_page -> new_page_alloc_othernode > > 3. new_page -> new_page_alloc_keepnode > > 4. alloc_new_node_page -> new_page_alloc_node > > 5. new_page -> new_page_alloc_mempolicy > > Hello Michal/Hugh, > > Does the renaming good enough or we should just not rename these. I'll neither ack nor nack, I don't greatly care: my concern was to head you away from gathering them into a single header file. Though alloc_new_node_page seems to me a *much* better name than new_page_alloc_node; and I'm puzzled why you would demand this conformity of some but not all of the functions of that type. Hugh -- 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