Received: by 2002:a25:5b86:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id p128csp1345533ybb; Fri, 29 Mar 2019 02:39:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzn4juMBu/AcehyYY7BePS/ZgElN8H009Ixy1G9yvgQ9ha41WBS6F05fYG7ruvEkbCIuu9D X-Received: by 2002:a62:e213:: with SMTP id a19mr648154pfi.85.1553852369265; Fri, 29 Mar 2019 02:39:29 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1553852369; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=MsssMOdzw4ixhCw+W0uWiVLFjwZJo1owPKtT6oCWB+ToTGSOn9B4J6myAZWuxa1Won XQN6v7DTsPEFyO1RgPB+c2Fl94J1cIyeZt1J21CmMGS+ERbBtlY7Tdv+H7B6w6dZ9D9m GeJ6K97UY/aYSp1GKEpGDnoQnkQw+p8ucRjsQzcnkNYcXWCHq7OtSnHNHcmZAM6a9xzR mrKv63q7WeTIl0ap7mBR9dsKDoe7hn5MJ94Hz8VlaY46EiN8FqTAMKTRXW/lffB6zdhc F8OzfQWEJ4qrIHIX7c5LIgbx0tWoFFlczv2/+qYOBuRPA+vOURgG4UoMPKppMdwaqJ8Y Pe4g== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:user-agent:in-reply-to :content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc :to:from:date; bh=ZuNYJ0STAOox2fW6u6xv5rOLr6thWOhW3nr4cC0YhHA=; b=isVCal3WsmmNicBTXIooO4IdtTXi4vnPy03U9hqGMsrAoCeq/vHzEmylbIGT5Luqt3 QgsWEw+zFbm8Sat/PLuz3MofR8q/DubZMvEj3tmilGEvafWbI8jf621a111sbzVXWDLy s94aqCDiHFGteYl6k0s3p2LX9LKADqqr8iQgFjqstISW8+X+Wpwdwnc7hjmWAShTBiUP XoeE2hbddlsRHw7wkpKIEh5lylBd57M0r83/c0HfeTX1C1uOhXdV+4cBdifAwoyh3q21 6Dea3L7A4YS2JsQl6noKZStL7qQBH3kJDlEThhpQNlgsTo3Vdh1pOUBPajn4Xvr3sg1d AXNQ== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id k22si1360066pfa.215.2019.03.29.02.39.14; Fri, 29 Mar 2019 02:39:29 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728770AbfC2Jh1 (ORCPT + 99 others); Fri, 29 Mar 2019 05:37:27 -0400 Received: from charybdis-ext.suse.de ([195.135.221.2]:61449 "EHLO suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727387AbfC2Jh1 (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Mar 2019 05:37:27 -0400 Received: by suse.de (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 8CF184743; Fri, 29 Mar 2019 10:37:25 +0100 (CET) Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2019 10:37:25 +0100 From: Oscar Salvador To: Michal Hocko Cc: Baoquan He , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, rafael@kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, rppt@linux.ibm.com, willy@infradead.org, fanc.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] drivers/base/memory.c: Rename the misleading parameter Message-ID: <20190329093725.blpcyane33fnxvn7@d104.suse.de> References: <20190329082915.19763-1-bhe@redhat.com> <20190329082915.19763-2-bhe@redhat.com> <20190329091325.GD28616@dhcp22.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190329091325.GD28616@dhcp22.suse.cz> User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170421 (1.8.2) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 10:13:25AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Fri 29-03-19 16:29:15, Baoquan He wrote: > > The input parameter 'phys_index' of memory_block_action() is actually > > the section number, but not the phys_index of memory_block. Fix it. > > I have tried to explain that the naming is mostly a relict from the past > than really a misleading name http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190326093315.GL28406@dhcp22.suse.cz > Maybe it would be good to reflect that in the changelog I think that phys_device variable in remove_memory_section() is also a relict from the past, and it is no longer used. Neither node_id variable is used. Actually, unregister_memory_section() sets those two to 0 no matter what. Since we are cleaning up, I wonder if we can go a bit further and we can get rid of that as well. -- Oscar Salvador SUSE L3