Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 19 Oct 2012 22:54:07 +0200 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/2] rename NUMA fault handling functions |
| |
* Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 10/19/2012 07:41 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > >On Thu, 2012-10-18 at 17:20 -0400, Rik van Riel wrote: > >>Having the function name indicate what the function is used > >>for makes the code a little easier to read. Furthermore, > >>the fault handling code largely consists of do_...._page > >>functions. > > > > I don't much care either way, but I was thinking walken > > might want to use something similar to do WSS estimation, in > > which case the NUMA name is just as wrong. > > That's a good point. I had not considered other uses of the > same code.
Renaming the functions for more clarity still makes sense IMO: we could give it a _wss or _working_set prefix/postfix?
Thanks,
Ingo
| |