Logan,
On Wed, 7 Nov 2018, Logan Gunthorpe wrote:
> On 2018-11-07 1:12 p.m., Andrew Morton wrote:
> >> +void __init memblocks_present(void)
> >> +{
> >> + struct memblock_region *reg;
> >> +
> >> + for_each_memblock(memory, reg) {
> >> + memory_present(memblock_get_region_node(reg),
> >> + memblock_region_memory_base_pfn(reg),
> >> + memblock_region_memory_end_pfn(reg));
> >> + }
> >> +}
> >> +
> >
> > I don't like the name much. To me, memblocks_present means "are
> > memblocks present" whereas this actually means "memblocks are present".
> > But whatever. A little covering comment which describes what this
> > does and why it does it would be nice.
>
> The same argument can be made about the existing memory_present()
> function and I think it's worth keeping the naming consistent. I'll add
> a comment and resend shortly.
Actually if both names suck, then there also is the option to rename both
instead of adding a comment to explain the suckage.
Thanks,
tglx
