linux-kernel - Re: [-mm patch] mm/memcontrol.c: clenups

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 11 Sep 2007 08:11:38 +0530
From:	Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Adrian Bunk <bunk@...sta.de>
CC:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [-mm patch] mm/memcontrol.c: clenups

Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 10, 2007 at 01:53:19PM +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
>> Adrian Bunk wrote:
>>> On Fri, Aug 31, 2007 at 09:58:22PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>> Changes since 2.6.23-rc3-mm1:
>>>> ...
>>>> +memory-controller-add-switch-to-control-what-type-of-pages-to-limit-v7.patch
>>>> ...
>>>>  memory containment
>>>> ...
>>> This patch makes the following needlessly global functions static:
>>> - lock_page_container()
>>> - unlock_page_container()
>>> - __mem_container_move_lists()
>>>
>>> Additionally, there was no reason for the "mem_control_type" object.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org>
>>>
>>> ---
>>>
>>>  mm/memcontrol.c |    8 ++++----
>>>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> b582cc510b6b0a182dc56025828e7a3c566b9724 
>>> diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
>>> index 8162d98..49bf04f 100644
>>> --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
>>> +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
>>> @@ -91,7 +91,7 @@ enum {
>>>  	MEM_CONTAINER_TYPE_CACHED,
>>>  	MEM_CONTAINER_TYPE_ALL,
>>>  	MEM_CONTAINER_TYPE_MAX,
>>> -} mem_control_type;
>>> +};
>>>
>> Not sure about this, is this the preferred style?
>> ...
> 
> 
> It's not about style - your "mem_control_type" was not an identifier,
> it was an (unused) variable.
> 
> 
> It seems the intended code was:
> 
> enum mem_control_type {
>         MEM_CONTAINER_TYPE_UNSPEC = 0,
>         MEM_CONTAINER_TYPE_MAPPED,
>         MEM_CONTAINER_TYPE_CACHED,
>         MEM_CONTAINER_TYPE_ALL,
>         MEM_CONTAINER_TYPE_MAX,
> };
> 
> 

Yes, thinking again, what you say makes sense.


-- 
	Thanks,
	Balbir Singh
	Linux Technology Center
	IBM, ISTL
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/