[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20100628192237.389F.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 18:26:19 +0900 (JST)
From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc: kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/9] oom: cleanup has_intersects_mems_allowed()
> On Mon, 21 Jun 2010, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
>
> > > I disagree that the renaming of the variables is necessary, please simply
> > > change the while (tsk != start) to use while_each_thread(tsk, start);
> >
> > This is common naming rule of while_each_thread(). please grep.
> >
>
> I disagree, there's no sense in substituting variable names like "tsk" for
> `p' and removing a very clear and obvious "start" task: it doesn't improve
> code readability.
>
> I'm in favor of changing the while (tsk != start) to
> while_each_thread(tsk, start) which is very trivial to understand and much
> more readable than while_each_thread(p, tsk). With the latter, it's not
> clear whether `p' or "tsk" is the iterator and which is the constant.
Heh, I'm ok this. It isn't big matter at all.
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists