Hello, Kame.
On Thu, Nov 08, 2012 at 01:37:50PM +0900, Kamezawa Hiroyuki wrote:
> How about
> enum {
> __CGROUP_FREEZING,
> __CGROUP_FROZEN,
> };
>
> #define CGROUP_FREEZER_STATE_MASK 0x3
> #define CGROUP_FREEZER_STATE(state) ((state) & CGROUP_FREEZER_STATE_MASK)
> #define CGROUP_THAW(state) (CGROUP_FREEZER_STATE(state) == 0)
> #define CGROUP_FREEZING(state) (CGROUP_FREEZER_STATE(state) == __CGROUP_FREEZING)
> #define CGROUP_FROZEN(state)\
> (CGROUP_FREEZER_STATE(state) == (__CGROUP_FREEZING | __CGROUP_FROZEN))
I think it's a bit overdone and we have cases where we test for
FREEZING regardless of FROZEN and cases where test for FREEZING &&
!FROZEN. We can have, say, CGROUP_FREZING() and then
CGROUP_FREEZING_BUT_NOT_FROZEN(), but it feels more like obfuscation
than anything else.
> >@@ -290,9 +284,9 @@ static int freezer_write(struct cgroup *cgroup, struct cftype *cft,
> > {
> > bool freeze;
> >
> >- if (strcmp(buffer, freezer_state_strs[CGROUP_THAWED]) == 0)
> >+ if (strcmp(buffer, freezer_state_strs(0)) == 0)
>
> Can't we have a name for "0" ?
We can define CGROUP_THAWED to be zero. I'd rather keep it explicitly
zero tho. freezer state is mask of freezing and frozen flags and no
flag set means thawed.
Thanks.
--
tejun
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
