Re: [PATCH v2 2/8] mm/memory_hotplug: Rename mhp_restrictions to mhp_modifiers

[Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 11:08 AM David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Am 08.01.2020 um 20:00 schrieb Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx>:
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 9:17 AM Logan Gunthorpe <logang@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> On 2020-01-08 5:28 a.m., David Hildenbrand wrote:
> >>> On 07.01.20 21:59, Logan Gunthorpe wrote:
> >>>> The mhp_restrictions struct really doesn't specify anything resembling
> >>>> a restriction anymore so rename it to be mhp_modifiers.
> >>>
> >>> I wonder if something like "mhp_params" would be even better. It's
> >>> essentially just a way to avoid changing call chains rough-out all archs
> >>> whenever we want to add a new parameter.
> >>
> >> Sure, that does sound a bit nicer to me. I can change it for v3.
> >
> > Oh, I was just about to chime in to support "modifiers" because I
> > would expect all parameters to folded into a "params" struct. The
> > modifiers seem to be limited to the set of items that are only
> > considered in a non-default / expert memory hotplug use cases.
> >
>
> It‘s a set of extended parameters I‘d say.

Sure, we can call them "mhp_params" and just clarify that they are
optional / extended in the kernel-doc.
>