[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200624140958.GN21350@casper.infradead.org>
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2020 15:09:58 +0100
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To: Rafael Aquini <aquini@...hat.com>
Cc: Joel Savitz <jsavitz@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/page_alloc: fix documentation error and remove magic
numbers
On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 10:07:27AM -0400, Rafael Aquini wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 12:12:55PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 11:27:12PM -0400, Joel Savitz wrote:
> > > In addition, this patch replaces the magic number bounds with symbolic
> > > constants to clarify the logic.
> >
> > Why do people think this kind of thing makes the code easier to read?
> > It actually makes it harder. Unless the constants are used in more
> > than one place, just leave the numbers where they are.
> >
> > > @@ -7852,6 +7852,9 @@ void setup_per_zone_wmarks(void)
> > > * 8192MB: 11584k
> > > * 16384MB: 16384k
> > > */
> > > +static const int MIN_FREE_KBYTES_LOWER_BOUND = 1 << 7;
> > > +static const int MIN_FREE_KBYTES_UPPER_BOUND = 1 << 18;
> > > +
>
> I think these constants would look better if declared as an enum.
Why does having to look in two different places make the code clearer?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists