If there are strong feelings I can use a different name, but
Yes, I would suggest we better keep the old name or take a more
appropriate one if have to change.
In light of patch #5 and #6, really only something like "vmcore_mem_node"
makes sense. Alternatively "vmcore_range" or "vmcore_mem_range".
Leaving it as "struct vmcore" would mean that we had to do in #5 and #6:
* vmcore_alloc_add_mem_node() -> vmcore_alloc_add()
* vmcore_free_mem_nodes() -> vmcore_free()
Which would *really* be misleading, because we are not "freeing" the vmcore.
Would "vmcore_range" work for you? Then we could do:
* vmcore_alloc_add_mem_node() -> vmcore_alloc_add_range()
* vmcore_free_mem_nodes() -> vmcore_free_ranges()
Yeah, vmcore_range is better, which won't cause misunderstanding.
Thanks.
Thanks, I'll use that and adjust patch #5 and #6, keeping your ACKs.
--
Cheers,
David / dhildenb
