[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <509B3C72.3050904@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2012 14:00:34 +0900
From: Kamezawa Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
CC: lizefan@...wei.com, mhocko@...e.cz, rjw@...k.pl,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, fweisbec@...il.com,
containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/9] cgroup_freezer: make freezer->state mask of flags
(2012/11/08 13:42), Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, Kame.
>
> On Thu, Nov 08, 2012 at 01:37:50PM +0900, Kamezawa Hiroyuki wrote:
>> How about
>> enum {
>> __CGROUP_FREEZING,
>> __CGROUP_FROZEN,
>> };
>>
>> #define CGROUP_FREEZER_STATE_MASK 0x3
>> #define CGROUP_FREEZER_STATE(state) ((state) & CGROUP_FREEZER_STATE_MASK)
>> #define CGROUP_THAW(state) (CGROUP_FREEZER_STATE(state) == 0)
>> #define CGROUP_FREEZING(state) (CGROUP_FREEZER_STATE(state) == __CGROUP_FREEZING)
>> #define CGROUP_FROZEN(state)\
>> (CGROUP_FREEZER_STATE(state) == (__CGROUP_FREEZING | __CGROUP_FROZEN))
>
> I think it's a bit overdone and we have cases where we test for
> FREEZING regardless of FROZEN and cases where test for FREEZING &&
> !FROZEN. We can have, say, CGROUP_FREZING() and then
> CGROUP_FREEZING_BUT_NOT_FROZEN(), but it feels more like obfuscation
> than anything else.
>
Hm, then, I'm glad if I can see what combinations of flags are valid and
meanings of them in source code comments.
Anyway,
Reviewed-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
--
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