Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-207835-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.48.161 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.48.161;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20240608152114.867961-1-lsahn@wewakecorp.com> <20240609140341.14ba3a1c62029771d60059ed@linux-foundation.org>
 <CANTT7qjthRWX+7m749mU_CmGUO1UEvY6O9yKsStm165Lz=tqAQ@mail.gmail.com> <ZmaX7cnUiWla9FCf@kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <ZmaX7cnUiWla9FCf@kernel.org>
From: Leesoo Ahn <lsahn@ooseel.net>
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2024 17:20:44 +0900
Message-ID: <CANTT7qizqvwJDTxNQnoHYVs5Lpi4w44LPq2KQmLb1HEtkyCxhA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: sparse: clarify a variable name and its value
To: Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, Leesoo Ahn <lsahn@wewakecorp.com>, linux-mm@kvack.org, 
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

2024=EB=85=84 6=EC=9B=94 10=EC=9D=BC (=EC=9B=94) =EC=98=A4=ED=9B=84 3:08, M=
ike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>=EB=8B=98=EC=9D=B4 =EC=9E=91=EC=84=B1:
>
> On Mon, Jun 10, 2024 at 12:39:28PM +0900, Leesoo Ahn wrote:
> > 2024=EB=85=84 6=EC=9B=94 10=EC=9D=BC (=EC=9B=94) =EC=98=A4=EC=A0=84 6:0=
3, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>=EB=8B=98=EC=9D=B4 =EC=9E=91=EC=
=84=B1:
> > >
> > > On Sun,  9 Jun 2024 00:21:14 +0900 Leesoo Ahn <lsahn@ooseel.net> wrot=
e:
> > >
> > > > Setting 'limit' variable to 0 might seem like it means "no limit". =
But
> > > > in the memblock API, 0 actually means the 'MEMBLOCK_ALLOC_ACCESSIBL=
E'
> > > > enum, which limits the physical address range based on
> > > > 'memblock.current_limit'. This can be confusing.
> > >
> > > Does it?  From my reading, this meaning applies to the range end
> > > address, in memblock_find_in_range_node()?  If your interpretation is
> > > correct, this should be documented in the relevant memblock kerneldoc=
.
>
> It is :-P
>
> > IMO, regardless of memblock documentation, it better uses
> > MEMBLOCK_ALLOC_ACCESSIBLE enum instead of 0 as a value for the variable=
.
>
> Using MEMBLOCK_ALLOC_ACCESSIBLE is a slight improvement, but renaming the
> variable is not, IMO.

I will post v2 as it replaces 0 with MEMBLOCK_ALLOC_ACCESSIBLE without
modifying the variable.

Thank you, Andrew and Mike for the reviews.

>
> > Best regards,
> > Leesoo
>
> --
> Sincerely yours,
> Mike.

Best regards,
Leesoo.