Re: [RFC PATCH v3 0/8] mm,numa: N_PRIVATE node isolation for device-managed memory

[dan.j.williams]

Balbir Singh wrote:
[..]
> > I agree with Gregory the name does not matter as much as the
> > documentation explaining what the name means. I am ok if others do not
> > sign onto the rationale for why not include _MEMORY, but lets capture
> > something that tries to clarify that this is a unique node state that
> > can have "all of the above" memory types relative to the existing
> > _MEMORY states.
> > 
> 
> To me, N_ is a common prefix, we do have N_HIGH_MEMORY, N_NORMAL_MEMORY.
> N_PRIVATE does not tell me if it's CPU or memory related.

True that confusion about whether N_PRIVATE can apply to CPUs is there.
How about split the difference and call this:

    N_MEM_PRIVATE

To make it both distinct from _MEMORY and _HIGH_MEMORY which describe
ZONE limitations and distinct from N_CPU.