Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
From:   =?iso-2022-jp?B?SEFHSU8gS0FaVUhJVE8oGyRCR2tIeCEhMGw/ThsoQik=?= 
        <k-hagio-ab@nec.com>
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
CC:     Dong Aisheng <dongas86@gmail.com>,
        Dong Aisheng <aisheng.dong@nxp.com>,
        "linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Dave Young <dyoung@redhat.com>, Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>,
        Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>,
        "kexec@lists.infradead.org" <kexec@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH V2 4/6] mm: rename the global section array to
 mem_sections
Thread-Topic: [PATCH V2 4/6] mm: rename the global section array to
 mem_sections
Thread-Index: AQHXVf5It4/cv5fnAkyoOipmGTT39ar+0qiAgAAD+ACAAADYgIAA/vwAgAAHHqA=
Date:   Wed, 2 Jun 2021 01:11:07 +0000
Message-ID: <TYYPR01MB67775E2EC60DEE1195A49577DD3D9@TYYPR01MB6777.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
References: <20210531091908.1738465-1-aisheng.dong@nxp.com>
 <20210531091908.1738465-5-aisheng.dong@nxp.com>
 <42617372-c846-85fe-4739-abbe55eca8f6@redhat.com>
 <CAA+hA=Ss4j8qeoe7RtDJ14nuqy+TpOk2qi-A9+YN6=2y8c_CGg@mail.gmail.com>
 <f7f77368-72cf-e15d-cc3c-b0ddf86e14fd@redhat.com>
 <20210601165246.99d7374d07661b7e91e49cb6@linux-foundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <20210601165246.99d7374d07661b7e91e49cb6@linux-foundation.org>
Accept-Language: ja-JP, en-US
Content-Language: ja-JP
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-2022-jp"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 81740d90-37cb-4d64-fc1f-08d925634d44
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 02 Jun 2021 01:11:07.6817
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: e67df547-9d0d-4f4d-9161-51c6ed1f7d11
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: I/DBDwDFJWwP0bOU+sr0qIx/v1pRyfXd5DXxJRubW3/8Uw2WUgSuuUjV9Na55v3qw6L5ST6aQjScflSs1YZ47g==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: TYAPR01MB5882
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

-----Original Message-----
> On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 10:40:09 +0200 David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> wr=
ote:
>=20
> > > Thanks, i explained the reason during my last reply.
> > > Andrew has already picked this patch to -mm tree.
> >
> > Just because it's in Andrews tree doesn't mean it will end up upstream.=
 ;)
> >
> > Anyhow, no really strong opinion, it's simply unnecessary code churn
> > that makes bisecting harder without real value IMHO.
>=20
> I think it's a good change - mem_sections refers to multiple instances
> of a mem_section.  Churn is a pain, but that's the price we pay for more
> readable code.  And for having screwed it up originally ;)

From a makedumpfile/crash-utility viewpoint, I don't deny kernel improvemen=
t
and probably the change will not be hard for them to support, but I'd like
you to remember that the tool users will need to update them for the change=
.

The situation where we need to update the tools for new kernels is usual, b=
ut
there are not many cases that they cannot even start session, and this chan=
ge
will cause it.  Personally I wonder the change is worth forcing users to up=
date
them.

Thanks,
Kazu