Re: [PATCH 15/26] x86-64, NUMA: Unify the rest of memblk registration

[Yinghai Lu]

On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 8:12 AM, Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 08:08:08AM -0800, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>> > No, I don't think so.  If you don't like the function name, let's
>> > change the name.  I think it's better to put all registrations there.
>> > Later in the series but function is changed to deal with struct
>> > numa_meminfo anyway so maybe it's better to rename it to
>> > numa_register_meminfo().
>>
>> No, I don't like ***_register_*** take care of calling setup_bootmem.
>
> Yeah, then, please go ahead and suggest the name you want.  I don't
> really care about the name itself, but I don't want to put it directly
> in initmem_init() because with double calling and extra loop added
> later it gets nested too deep.  For now, let's move on, okay?  We can
> argue about this for days but there's no clear technical
> [dis]advantage one way or the other and falls squarely in the scope of
> bikeshedding.
>
why not do it at first point ?

numa_register_meminfo() should only take care of creating correctly
struct numa_meminfo.

Yinghai
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/