On 2020-01-08 12:13 p.m., Dan Williams wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 11:08 AM David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Am 08.01.2020 um 20:00 schrieb Dan Williams :
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 9:17 AM Logan Gunthorpe wrote:
> On 2020-01-08 5:28 a.m., David Hildenbrand
On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 11:08 AM David Hildenbrand wrote:
>
>
>
> > Am 08.01.2020 um 20:00 schrieb Dan Williams :
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 9:17 AM Logan Gunthorpe wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> On 2020-01-08 5:28 a.m., David Hildenbrand wrote:
> >>> On 07.01.20 21:59, Logan Gunthorpe wrote:
>
> Am 08.01.2020 um 20:00 schrieb Dan Williams :
>
> On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 9:17 AM Logan Gunthorpe wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 2020-01-08 5:28 a.m., David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>> On 07.01.20 21:59, Logan Gunthorpe wrote:
The mhp_restrictions struct really doesn't specify anything
On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 9:17 AM Logan Gunthorpe wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2020-01-08 5:28 a.m., David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > On 07.01.20 21:59, Logan Gunthorpe wrote:
> >> The mhp_restrictions struct really doesn't specify anything resembling
> >> a restriction anymore so rename it to be mhp_modifiers.
>
On 2020-01-08 5:28 a.m., David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 07.01.20 21:59, Logan Gunthorpe wrote:
>> The mhp_restrictions struct really doesn't specify anything resembling
>> a restriction anymore so rename it to be mhp_modifiers.
>
> I wonder if something like "mhp_params" would be even better.
On 07.01.20 21:59, Logan Gunthorpe wrote:
> The mhp_restrictions struct really doesn't specify anything resembling
> a restriction anymore so rename it to be mhp_modifiers.
I wonder if something like "mhp_params" would be even better. It's
essentially just a way to avoid changing call chains
The mhp_restrictions struct really doesn't specify anything resembling
a restriction anymore so rename it to be mhp_modifiers.
Signed-off-by: Logan Gunthorpe
---
arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c| 4 ++--
arch/ia64/mm/init.c| 4 ++--
arch/powerpc/mm/mem.c | 4 ++--
