On Sun, Jun 04, 2017 at 11:09:42PM +0300, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 04, 2017 at 01:04:37PM -0700, Yu Zhao wrote:
> > @@ -2498,22 +2449,24 @@ static int mem_cgroup_resize_memsw_limit(struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
> > }
> >
> > mutex_lock(&memcg_limit_mutex);
> > - if (limit < memcg->memory.limit) {
> > + inverted = memsw ? limit < memcg->memory.limit :
> > + limit > memcg->memsw.limit;
> > + if (inverted)
> > mutex_unlock(&memcg_limit_mutex);
> > ret = -EINVAL;
> > break;
> > }
>
> For some reason, I liked this patch more without this extra variable :-)
Well, I'll refrain myself from commenting more because we are now at
the risk of starting a coding style war over this.
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>
