On 22.01.21 07:04, Anshuman Khandual wrote: > > On 1/20/21 2:07 PM, Anshuman Khandual wrote: >> >> >> On 1/19/21 7:10 PM, Oscar Salvador wrote: >>> On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 02:33:03PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote: >>>> Minor thing, we should make up our mind if we want to call stuff >>>> internally "memhp_" or "mhp". I prefer the latter, because it is shorter. >>> >>> I would rather use the latter as well. I used that in [1]. >> >> Okay, will change all that is 'memhp' as 'mhp' instead. >> >>> MEMHP_MERGE_RESOURCE should be renamed if we agree on that. >>> >>> [1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-mm/cover/20201217130758.11565-1-osalvador@xxxxxxx/ >>> > > While replacing 'memhp' as 'mhp' in this series, noticed there are > some more 'memhp' scattered around the code from earlier. A mix of > both 'memhp' and 'mhp' might not be a good idea. Hence should we > just change these remaining 'memhp' as 'mhp' as well and possibly > also MEMHP_MERGE_RESOURCE as suggested earlier, in a subsequent As mentioned in another thread to Oscar, I already have a cleanup patch for that one lying around, part of a bigger series. Might just send that one out separately earlier. > clean up patch ? Would there be a problem with memhp_default_state > being a command line parameter ? Yes, that one we should not change, to not break existing cmdlines without good reason. We could change the memhp_default_online_type/memhp_online_type_from_str/... thingies, though. Feel free to send a patch, thanks! -- Thanks, David / dhildenb
