On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 10:33:58PM +0400, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 09:11:32PM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 10:46:12PM -0300, Glauber Costa wrote:
> > > +int tcp_init_cgroup_fill(struct proto *prot, struct cgroup *cgrp,
> > > + struct cgroup_subsys *ss)
> > > +{
> > > + prot->enter_memory_pressure = tcp_enter_memory_pressure;
> > > + prot->memory_allocated = memory_allocated_tcp;
> > > + prot->prot_mem = tcp_sysctl_mem;
> > > + prot->sockets_allocated = sockets_allocated_tcp;
> > > + prot->memory_pressure = memory_pressure_tcp;
> >
> > No fancy formatting, please.
> >
>
> What's wrong with having fancy formatting? It's indeed easier to read
> when members are assigned this way. It's always up to maintainer to
> choose what he prefers, but I see nothing wrong in such style (if only it
> doesn't break the style of the whole file).
You have to remove this indenting if you'll reorganize code (e.g. move
part under if(...)).
IMO, it reduces code maintainability.
--
Kirill A. Shutemov
--
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/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>