On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 03:38:55AM -0500, Xi Wang wrote: > On Jan 11, 2012, at 3:28 AM, Dan Carpenter wrote: > > MAXIMUM_NUM_CONTAINERS is consistently used as a minimum not a maximum > > so I was wondering what was up with that? This is ancient code that > > predates git. > > Check out some early discussion. ;-) > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/12/3/85 Heh. That's weird that we were both looking at the same code so many years down the line. Still Haogang is assuming that MAXIMUM_NUM_CONTAINERS is supposed to be a minimum instead of it just being used that way by mistake. Mark is more familiar with code and thought it was supposed to be a maximum. regards, dan carpenter
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
