Re: [PATCH v8 1/9] Basic kernel memory functionality for the MemoryController

From: Glauber Costa
Date: Fri Dec 09 2011 - 09:48:54 EST


On 12/09/2011 12:44 PM, David Laight wrote:

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@xxxxxxxxxx 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@xxxxxxxxx"> email@xxxxxxxxx</a>

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/