[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YBwgOHL8dTjJpnKU@cmpxchg.org>
Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2021 11:26:32 -0500
From: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
To: Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
linux-mm@...ck.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/7] mm: memcontrol: switch to rstat
On Tue, Feb 02, 2021 at 05:47:26PM -0800, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 02, 2021 at 01:47:45PM -0500, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > for_each_node(node) {
> > struct mem_cgroup_per_node *pn = memcg->nodeinfo[node];
> > + unsigned long stat[NR_VM_NODE_STAT_ITEMS] = {0, };
> ^^
> I'd drop the comma here. It seems that "{0}" version is way more popular
> over the mm code and in the kernel in general.
Is there a downside to the comma? I'm finding more { 0, } than { 0 }
in mm code, and at least kernel-wide it seems both are acceptable
(although { 0 } is more popular overall).
I don't care much either way. I can change it in v2 if there is one.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists