[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1402141516540.13935@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 15:18:01 -0800 (PST)
From: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
cc: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Wanpeng Li <liwanp@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Joonsoo Kim <js1304@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/9] slab: makes clear_obj_pfmemalloc() just return store
masked value
On Fri, 14 Feb 2014, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > @@ -215,9 +215,9 @@ static inline void set_obj_pfmemalloc(void **objp)
> > return;
> > }
> >
> > -static inline void clear_obj_pfmemalloc(void **objp)
> > +static inline void *clear_obj_pfmemalloc(void *objp)
> > {
> > - *objp = (void *)((unsigned long)*objp & ~SLAB_OBJ_PFMEMALLOC);
> > + return (void *)((unsigned long)objp & ~SLAB_OBJ_PFMEMALLOC);
> > }
>
> I dont think you need the (void *) cast here.
>
Yeah, you don't need it, but don't you think it makes the code more
readable? Otherwise this is going to be just doing
return (unsigned long)objp & ~SLAB_OBJ_PFMEMALLOC;
and you gotta figure out the function type to understand it's returned as
a pointer.
--
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