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.... -- Thanks. Zhang Yanfei -- 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>