On Wed, 2015-12-23 at 15:23 +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 01:04:32PM -0700, Toshi Kani wrote: : > > I agree that we can add new interfaces with the type check. This > > 'type' > > may need some clarification since it is an assigned type, which is > > different from I/O resource type. That is, "System RAM" is an I/O > > resource type (i.e. IORESOURCE_SYSTEM_RAM), but "Crash kernel" is an > > assigned type to a particular range of System RAM. A range may be > > associated with multiple names, so as multiple assigned types. For > > lack of a better idea, I may call it 'assign_type'. I am open for a > > better name. > > Or assigned_type or named_type or so... > > I think we should avoid calling it "type" completely in order to avoid > confusion with the IORESOURCE_* types and call it "desc" or so to mean > description, sort, etc, because the name is also a description of the > resource to a certain degree... Agreed. I will use 'desc'. > > OK, I will try to convert the existing callers with the new interfaces. > > Either that or add the new interfaces, use them in your use case, add > big fat comments explaining that people should use those from now on > when searching by name and add a check to checkpatch to catch future > mis-uses... Sounds good. I will look into it. 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>