On Wed, 2013-09-25 at 00:08 +0800, Zhang Yanfei wrote: > Hello toshi-san > > On 09/25/2013 12:00 AM, Toshi Kani wrote: > > On Tue, 2013-09-24 at 23:24 +0800, Zhang Yanfei wrote: > >> Hello tejun, > >> > >> On 09/24/2013 09:31 PM, Zhang Yanfei wrote: > >>>> This came up during earlier review but never was addressed. Is > >>>>> "movablenode" the right name? Shouldn't it be something which > >>>>> explicitly shows that it's to prepare for memory hotplug? Also, maybe > >>>>> the above param should generate warning if CONFIG_MOVABLE_NODE isn't > >>>>> enabled? > >>> hmmm...as for the option name, if this option is set, it means, the kernel > >>> could support the functionality that a whole node is the so called > >>> movable node, which only has ZONE MOVABLE zone in it. So we choose > >>> to name the parameter "movablenode". > >>> > >>> As for the warning, will add it. > >> > >> I am now preparing the v5 version. Only in this patch we haven't come to an > >> agreement. So as for the boot option name, after my explanation, do you still > >> have the objection? Or you could suggest a good name for us, that'll be > >> very thankful:) > > > > I do not think the granularity has to stay as a node, and this option > > does nothing to with other devices that may be included in a node. So, > > how about using "movablemem"? > > > > As I explained before, we use movablenode to mean a node could only have > a MOVABLE zone from the memory aspect. So I still think movablenode seems > better than movablemem. movablemem seems vaguer here.... But a node may contain other devices, such CPUs and PCI bridges. To me, movablenode does not clarify that this option is from the memory aspect... Thanks, -Toshi -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
