Re: [PATCH v8 1/9] Basic kernel memory functionality for the Memory Controller
From: Glauber Costa <hidden>
Date: 2011-12-09 14:48:56
Also in:
cgroups, linux-mm, lkml
On 12/09/2011 12:44 PM, David Laight wrote:
quoted
How about this? val = !!val; /* * This follows the same hierarchy restrictions than * mem_cgroup_hierarchy_write() */ if (!parent || !parent->use_hierarchy) { if (list_empty(&cgroup->children)) memcg->kmem_independent_accounting = val; else return -EBUSY; } else return -EINVAL; return 0;Inverting the tests gives easier to read code: if (parent&& parent->user_hierarchy) return -EINVAL; if (!list_empty(&cgroup->children)) return -EBUSY; memcg->kmem_independent_accounting = val != 0; return 0;
On the other hand, inconsistent with mem_cgroup_hierarchy_write(), which applies the logic in the same way I did here.
NFI about the logic... On the face of it the tests don't seem related to each other or to the assignment!
How so? If parent's use_hierarchy is set, we can't set this value (we need to have a parent for that to even matter). We also can't set it if we already have any children - otherwise all the on-the-fly adjustments become hell-on-earth. As for = val != 0, sorry, but I completely disagree this is easier than !!val. Not to mention the !!val notation is already pretty widespread in the kernel.
David -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email:<a href=ilto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org</a>
-- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>