2010/9/17 Balbir Singh <balbir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > * KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> [2010-09-16 16:17:27]: > >> On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 15:22:04 +0900 >> KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> > This naming is from mem_cgroup_walk_tree(). Now we have >> > >> > mem_cgroup_walk_tree(); >> > mem_cgroup_walk_all(); >> > >> > Rename both ? But it should be in separated patch. >> > >> >> Considering a bit ...but.. >> >> #define for_each_mem_cgroup(mem) \ >> for (mem = mem_cgroup_get_first(); \ >> mem; \ >> mem = mem_cgroup_get_next(mem);) \ >> >> seems to need some helper functions. I'll consider about this clean up >> but it requires some amount of patch because css_get()/css_put()/rcu...etc.. >> are problematic. >> > > Why does this need to be a macro (I know we use this for lists and > other places), assuming for now we don't use the iterator pattern, we > can rename mem_cgroup_walk_all() to for_each_mem_cgroup(). > When I see for_each in the kernel source, I expect iterator and macro. When I see "walk" in the kernel source, I expect callback and visit function. Thanks, -Kame -- 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/ . Don't email: <a href