Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 09:24:22 +0900
From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
To: "Ray Lee" <ray-lk@madrabbit.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] bitmap relative operator for mempolicy extensions
Cc: kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com, "Paul Jackson" <pj@sgi.com>,
       rientjes@google.com, Lee.Schermerhorn@hp.com, mel@csn.ul.ie, ak@suse.de,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
       clameter@sgi.com
In-Reply-To: <2c0942db0802141255o5d18c6bfxe052ba9512a18817@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20080214103541.10943567.pj@sgi.com> <2c0942db0802141255o5d18c6bfxe052ba9512a18817@mail.gmail.com>
Message-Id: <20080215092014.1C49.KOSAKI.MOTOHIRO@jp.fujitsu.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 986
Lines: 30

Hi Ray,

> >  > i prefer another name [!relative].
> >
> >  Any suggestions?
> >
> >  I'll give the name some thought myself.
> >  I like good names, and this is the right
> >  time to get this one right.
> 
> 'Relative map' implies a constant offset. What you have there is just
> a map as relmap could be sparse (which, btw, would have been nice to
> have in the example).
> 
> map_bitmap violates your naming convention, bitmap_map isn't all that
> clear, bitmap_remap is taken, and while it is one-to-one and onto, I
> think calling it bitmap_bijection would lose everyone except the
> mathematicians. bitmap_onto? bitmap_map_onto? bitmap_map_bitmap_onto?

Thanks for many idea.
I like bitmap_onto and/or bitmap_map_onto. :)


- kosaki

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