Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 14 Feb 2008 12:55:49 -0800 | From | "Ray Lee" <> | Subject | Re: [RFC] bitmap relative operator for mempolicy extensions |
| |
On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 8:35 AM, Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com> wrote: > Kosaki-san wrote: > > 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?
bitmap_read_my_kernel_doc?
Minor suggestion: + * and the n-th bit of @relmap is the m-th set bit of @relmap.
Perhaps s/is the/is also the/, so that the reader doesn't try to second guess if you accidentally wrote @relmap twice instead of one of them being @orig.
| |