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. >
