2006/2/12, [email protected] <[email protected]>:
>
> The patch titled
>
> vmscan: rename functions
>
> has been added to the -mm tree. Its filename is
>
> vmscan-rename-functions.patch
>
> See http://www.zip.com.au/~akpm/linux/patches/stuff/added-to-mm.txt to find
> out what to do about this
>
>
> From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
>
> We have:
>
> try_to_free_pages
> ->shrink_caches(struct zone **zones, ..)
> ->shrink_zone(struct zone *, ...)
> ->shrink_cache(struct zone *, ...)
> ->shrink_list(struct list_head *, ...)
>
> which is fairly irrational.
>
> Rename things so that we have
>
> try_to_free_pages
> ->shrink_zones(struct zone **zones, ..)
> ->shrink_zone(struct zone *, ...)
> ->do_shrink_zone(struct zone *, ...)
> ->shrink_page_list(struct list_head *, ...)
Every time I read this part it annoys me. Thanks.
--
Coywolf Qi Hunt
Coywolf Qi Hunt wrote:
> 2006/2/12, [email protected] <[email protected]>:
>
>>The patch titled
>>
>> vmscan: rename functions
>>
>>has been added to the -mm tree. Its filename is
>>
>> vmscan-rename-functions.patch
>>
>>See http://www.zip.com.au/~akpm/linux/patches/stuff/added-to-mm.txt to find
>>out what to do about this
>>
>>
>>From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
>>
>>We have:
>>
>> try_to_free_pages
>> ->shrink_caches(struct zone **zones, ..)
>> ->shrink_zone(struct zone *, ...)
>> ->shrink_cache(struct zone *, ...)
>> ->shrink_list(struct list_head *, ...)
>>
>>which is fairly irrational.
>>
>>Rename things so that we have
>>
>> try_to_free_pages
>> ->shrink_zones(struct zone **zones, ..)
>> ->shrink_zone(struct zone *, ...)
>> ->do_shrink_zone(struct zone *, ...)
>> ->shrink_page_list(struct list_head *, ...)
>
>
> Every time I read this part it annoys me. Thanks.
I don't much care, but if there is renaming afoot, I'd vote for
->shrink_zones(struct zone **zones, ..)
->shrink_zone(struct zone *, ...)
->shrink_inactive_list(struct zone *, ...)
->shrink_page_list(struct list_head *, ...)
->shrink_active_list (alternatively, leave as refill_inactive_list)
shrink_zone and do_shrink_zone don't really say any more to me than
shrink_zone and shrink_cache.
--
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
On Wed, 2006-02-15 at 14:09 +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> Coywolf Qi Hunt wrote:
> > 2006/2/12, [email protected] <[email protected]>:
> >
> >>The patch titled
> >>
> >> vmscan: rename functions
> >>
> >>has been added to the -mm tree. Its filename is
> >>
> >> vmscan-rename-functions.patch
> >>
> >>See http://www.zip.com.au/~akpm/linux/patches/stuff/added-to-mm.txt to find
> >>out what to do about this
> >>
> >>
> >>From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
> >>
> >>We have:
> >>
> >> try_to_free_pages
> >> ->shrink_caches(struct zone **zones, ..)
> >> ->shrink_zone(struct zone *, ...)
> >> ->shrink_cache(struct zone *, ...)
> >> ->shrink_list(struct list_head *, ...)
> >>
> >>which is fairly irrational.
> >>
> >>Rename things so that we have
> >>
> >> try_to_free_pages
> >> ->shrink_zones(struct zone **zones, ..)
> >> ->shrink_zone(struct zone *, ...)
> >> ->do_shrink_zone(struct zone *, ...)
> >> ->shrink_page_list(struct list_head *, ...)
> >
> >
> > Every time I read this part it annoys me. Thanks.
>
> I don't much care, but if there is renaming afoot, I'd vote for
>
> ->shrink_zones(struct zone **zones, ..)
> ->shrink_zone(struct zone *, ...)
> ->shrink_inactive_list(struct zone *, ...)
> ->shrink_page_list(struct list_head *, ...)
> ->shrink_active_list (alternatively, leave as refill_inactive_list)
>
> shrink_zone and do_shrink_zone don't really say any more to me than
> shrink_zone and shrink_cache.
I know not everybody believes in a plugable reclaim policy, but that is
what I'm building. And from that POV I'd rather not see the
active/inactive names get used here.
My vote goes to Coywolf's suggestion.
Peter
Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-02-15 at 14:09 +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
>>shrink_zone and do_shrink_zone don't really say any more to me than
>>shrink_zone and shrink_cache.
>
>
> I know not everybody believes in a plugable reclaim policy, but that is
> what I'm building. And from that POV I'd rather not see the
> active/inactive names get used here.
>
active/inactive is what we have now. If you manage to get a pluggable
reclaim policy merged then I assure you, renaming these yet again will
be the least of your worries :)
> My vote goes to Coywolf's suggestion.
>
What was that?
--
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
On Wed, 2006-02-15 at 19:35 +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Wed, 2006-02-15 at 14:09 +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
>
> >>shrink_zone and do_shrink_zone don't really say any more to me than
> >>shrink_zone and shrink_cache.
> >
> >
> > I know not everybody believes in a plugable reclaim policy, but that is
> > what I'm building. And from that POV I'd rather not see the
> > active/inactive names get used here.
> >
>
> active/inactive is what we have now. If you manage to get a pluggable
> reclaim policy merged then I assure you, renaming these yet again will
> be the least of your worries :)
True indeed.
> > My vote goes to Coywolf's suggestion.
> >
>
> What was that?
Hmm, seems like I shouldn't read email before waking up, apparently I
got the quoting levels mixed up.
Anyway, this one:
>> try_to_free_pages
>> ->shrink_zones(struct zone **zones, ..)
>> ->shrink_zone(struct zone *, ...)
>> ->do_shrink_zone(struct zone *, ...)
>> ->shrink_page_list(struct list_head *, ...)