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"? Thanks, -Toshi -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>