On Wed, 7 May 2014, George Spelvin wrote: > > I think this unnecessarily obfuscates the code. > > Thanks for the feedback! (Even if it's negative, I appreciate it.) > > To me, the confusing thing is the whole passing-a-pointer-to-a-pointer > business. How about the following, which makes set_obj_pfmemalloc and > clear_obj_pfmemalloc take void *, not void **? Is this better, or worse? > A function called clear_obj_pfmemalloc() doesn't indicate it's returning anything, I think the vast majority of people would believe that it returns void just as it does. There's no complier generated code optimization with this patch and I'm not sure it's even correct since you're now clearing after doing recheck_pfmemalloc_active(). I think it does make sense to remove the pointless "return;" in set_obj_pfmemalloc(), however. Not sure it's worth asking someone to merge it, though. -- 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>