* Hiroyuki Kamezawa <kamezawa.hiroyuki@xxxxxxxxx> [2010-09-17 20:49:09]: > 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. > I understand that is the convention we used thus far. When I see for_each for walk, I presume iterators, doesn't matter if we have a call back or not. I'll leave the decision to you. -- Three Cheers, Balbir -- 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=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>