On 2020-01-08 12:13 p.m., Dan Williams wrote: > 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. Well pgprot isn't going to be optional... But I'll add something to the kernel_doc. Logan
