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

[Logan Gunthorpe <logang@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 2020-01-08 12:13 p.m., Dan Williams wrote:
> 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.

Well pgprot isn't going to be optional... But I'll add something to the
kernel_doc.

Logan