[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <56A78D56.2030902@fau.de>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 16:14:30 +0100
From: Andreas Ziegler <andreas.ziegler@....de>
To: "Rosen, Rami" <rami.rosen@...el.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
"cgroups@...r.kernel.org" <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cgroup: Fix misspelling of CONFIG_SOCK_CGROUP_DATA in
comments
On 01/26/2016 16:08, Rosen, Rami wrote:
> Hi,
>
> --- a/include/linux/cgroup.h
> +++ b/include/linux/cgroup.h
> @@ -604,11 +604,11 @@ static inline struct cgroup *sock_cgroup_ptr(struct sock_cgroup_data *skcd)
> #endif
> }
>
> In this occasion, seems that maybe something else is also missing:
> Shouldn't it be hereafter : +#else /* !CONFIG_SOCK_CGROUP_DATA */
> instead ?
>
> -#else /* CONFIG_CGROUP_DATA */
> +#else /* CONFIG_SOCK_CGROUP_DATA */
It seems that there is no real consensus among the developers for that
particular case:
ziegler@box:~/linux$ git grep "#else \/\* \!CONFIG_" | wc -l
327
ziegler@box:~/linux$ git grep "#else \/\* CONFIG_" | wc -l
564
I don't mind changing it, I'm just not sure if that's what we want.
Regards,
Andreas
Powered by blists - more mailing lists