On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 03:30:49PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > 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. > Being all the same to you, I prefer like this. At least while the users are self contained and live inside memcg core. This is because I believe having two functions can be a bit confusing, and while not *totally* confusing, the array-like users are relatively few. > 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! > Thanks Michal! Please take a look at the individual patches if you can. -- 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>