On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 4:03 PM, David Rientjes <rientjes@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, 15 Apr 2011, Hugh Dickins wrote: > >> This makes good sense (now you're using MAX instead of MIN!), >> but may I helatedly ask you to change the name test_set_oom_score_adj() >> to replace_oom_score_adj()? Âtest_set means a bitflag operation to me. >> > > Does replace_oom_score_adj() imply that it will be returning the old value > of oom_score_adj like test_set_oom_score_adj() does? I can easily imagine an implementation of "replace_oom_score_adj" which does not return the old value: so no, that name does not imply that it will be returning the old value. But since it does return something, it's quite reasonable that what it returns is the old value. Whereas "test_set_oom_score_adj" tends to imply that it will set the oom_score_adj only if it's currently zero. Hugh -- 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