On 12/09/2011 12:44 PM, David Laight wrote:
How about this?
val = !!val;
/*
* This follows the same hierarchy restrictions than
* mem_cgroup_hierarchy_write()
*/
if (!parent || !parent->use_hierarchy) {
if (list_empty(&cgroup->children))
memcg->kmem_independent_accounting = val;
else
return -EBUSY;
}
else
return -EINVAL;
return 0;
Inverting the tests gives easier to read code:
if (parent&& parent->user_hierarchy)
return -EINVAL;
if (!list_empty(&cgroup->children))
return -EBUSY;
memcg->kmem_independent_accounting = val != 0;
return 0;
On the other hand, inconsistent with mem_cgroup_hierarchy_write(), which
applies the logic in the same way I did here.
NFI about the logic...
On the face of it the tests don't seem related to each other
or to the assignment!
How so?
If parent's use_hierarchy is set, we can't set this value (we need to
have a parent for that to even matter).
We also can't set it if we already have any children - otherwise all the
on-the-fly adjustments become hell-on-earth.
As for = val != 0, sorry, but I completely disagree this is easier than
!!val. Not to mention the !!val notation is already pretty widespread in
the kernel.
David
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majord...@kvack.org. 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=ilto:"d...@kvack.org"> em...@kvack.org</a>
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
Devel@openvz.org
https://openvz.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
