From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CC8643FC9; Tue, 7 May 2024 14:43:34 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1D8D402C8; Tue, 7 May 2024 14:43:33 +0200 (CEST) Received: from foss.arm.com (foss.arm.com [217.140.110.172]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 095CD4026F for ; Tue, 7 May 2024 14:43:33 +0200 (CEST) Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 755C51063; Tue, 7 May 2024 05:43:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.1.194.25] (unknown [10.1.194.25]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4C2DC3F793; Tue, 7 May 2024 05:43:31 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 7 May 2024 13:43:30 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] dts: Change hugepage 'amount' to a different term Content-Language: en-GB To: Bruce Richardson , Nicholas Pratte Cc: yoan.picchi@foss.arm.com, juraj.linkes@pantheon.tech, paul.szczepanek@arm.com, wathsala.vithanage@arm.com, thomas@monjalon.net, Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com, probb@iol.unh.edu, dev@dpdk.org References: <20240430184533.29247-2-npratte@iol.unh.edu> <20240430184533.29247-3-npratte@iol.unh.edu> From: Luca Vizzarro In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org On 07/05/2024 13:05, Bruce Richardson wrote: > Sorry to be late to the reviews here, but since this is a countable value - > as you state in the cover letter- would "number" or "count" not be better > terms. To me, "quantity" is just a synonym of "amount", and can be used for > uncountable values too, e.g. "a quantity of water". Hi Bruce, The change is based on the readability and intuitiveness of the configuration file. In which case "number" could be ambiguous: hugepages_2mb: number: 100 And here I could see "count" working: hugepages_2mb: count: 100 But since the change is propagated for consistency. "count" would no longer be well fitting in the rest: "description": "The count of hugepages to configure. Hugepage size will be the system default." It seems that "quantity" may be the best fitting here while retaining naming consistency. Best, Luca