[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20110204095354.7332d8d4.nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp>
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2011 09:53:54 +0900
From: Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp>
To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp>
Subject: Re: [patch 3/5] memcg: fold __mem_cgroup_move_account into caller
On Fri, 4 Feb 2011 09:07:38 +0900
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Feb 2011 15:26:04 +0100
> Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org> wrote:
>
> > It is one logical function, no need to have it split up.
> >
> > Also, get rid of some checks from the inner function that ensured the
> > sanity of the outer function.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
>
> I think there was a reason to split them...but it seems I forget it..
>
IIRC, it's me who split them up in commit 57f9fd7d.
But the purpose of the commit was cleanup move_parent() and move_account()
to use move_accout() in move_charge() later.
So, there was no technical reason why I split move_account() and __move_account().
It was just because I liked to make each functions do one thing: check validness
and actually move account.
Anyway, I don't have any objection to folding them. page_is_cgroup_locked()
can be removed by this change.
Acked-by: Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp>
Thanks,
Daisuke Nishimura.
--
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