[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20121011125309.GD29295@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 14:53:10 +0200
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
To: Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Suleiman Souhlal <suleiman@...gle.com>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>, devel@...nvz.org,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 04/14] kmem accounting basic infrastructure
On Thu 11-10-12 12:11:19, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Mon 08-10-12 14:06:10, Glauber Costa wrote:
[...]
> > +static void memcg_kmem_set_active(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
> > +{
> > + set_bit(KMEM_ACCOUNTED_ACTIVE, &memcg->kmem_accounted);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static bool memcg_kmem_is_accounted(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
> > +{
> > + return test_bit(KMEM_ACCOUNTED_ACTIVE, &memcg->kmem_accounted);
> > +}
> > +#endif
>
> set_active vs. is_accounted. Is there any reason for inconsistency here?
Ahh, fixed later and 09/14 makes it memcg_kmem_is_active so this is just
a code churn. I think making it memcg_kmem_is_active here would be
better.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
--
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