On Fri 14-06-13 14:04:34, Glauber Costa wrote: > Michal, > > Let me know if this is more acceptable to you. I didn't take your suggestion of > having an id and idx functions, because I think this could potentially be even > more confusing: in the sense that people would need to wonder a bit what is the > difference between them. Any clean up is better than nothing. I still think that split up and making the 2 functions explicit would be better but I do not think this is really that important. > Note please that we never use the id as an array index outside of memcg core. Now but that doesn't prevent future abuse. > So for memcg core, I have changed, in Patch 2, each direct use of idx as an > index to include a VM_BUG_ON in case we would get an invalid index. OK. If you had an _idx variant then you wouldn't need to add that VM_BUG_ON at every single place where you use it as an index and do not risk that future calls would forget about VM_BUG_ON. > For the other cases, I have consolidated a bit the usage pattern around > memcg_cache_id. Now the tests are all pretty standardized. OK, Great! > Glauber Costa (2): > memcg: make cache index determination more robust > memcg: consolidate callers of memcg_cache_id > > mm/memcontrol.c | 19 ++++++++++++------- > 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > > -- > 1.8.1.4 > -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs -- 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>