On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 03:09:58PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 10:07:27AM -0400, Rafael Aquini wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 12:12:55PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > > On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 11:27:12PM -0400, Joel Savitz wrote: > > > > In addition, this patch replaces the magic number bounds with symbolic > > > > constants to clarify the logic. > > > > > > Why do people think this kind of thing makes the code easier to read? > > > It actually makes it harder. Unless the constants are used in more > > > than one place, just leave the numbers where they are. > > > > > > > @@ -7852,6 +7852,9 @@ void setup_per_zone_wmarks(void) > > > > * 8192MB: 11584k > > > > * 16384MB: 16384k > > > > */ > > > > +static const int MIN_FREE_KBYTES_LOWER_BOUND = 1 << 7; > > > > +static const int MIN_FREE_KBYTES_UPPER_BOUND = 1 << 18; > > > > + > > > > I think these constants would look better if declared as an enum. > > Why does having to look in two different places make the code clearer? > It might not make it clearer in this particular case, because it was easy to take the meaning from the code, but it also doesn't make it harder to read, so I don't have any strong opinion on this case. Joel's approach, however, makes sense if you consider it's generally a good practice to get rid of the unnamed magic numbers anti-pattern. Cheers, -- Rafael
