[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110918185806.GA28057@shutemov.name>
Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2011 21:58:06 +0300
From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>
To: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>
Cc: Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, paul@...lmenage.org,
lizf@...fujitsu.com, kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com,
ebiederm@...ssion.com, davem@...emloft.net, gthelen@...gle.com,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/7] per-cgroup tcp buffers control
On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 10:33:58PM +0400, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 09:11:32PM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 10:46:12PM -0300, Glauber Costa wrote:
> > > +int tcp_init_cgroup_fill(struct proto *prot, struct cgroup *cgrp,
> > > + struct cgroup_subsys *ss)
> > > +{
> > > + prot->enter_memory_pressure = tcp_enter_memory_pressure;
> > > + prot->memory_allocated = memory_allocated_tcp;
> > > + prot->prot_mem = tcp_sysctl_mem;
> > > + prot->sockets_allocated = sockets_allocated_tcp;
> > > + prot->memory_pressure = memory_pressure_tcp;
> >
> > No fancy formatting, please.
> >
>
> What's wrong with having fancy formatting? It's indeed easier to read
> when members are assigned this way. It's always up to maintainer to
> choose what he prefers, but I see nothing wrong in such style (if only it
> doesn't break the style of the whole file).
You have to remove this indenting if you'll reorganize code (e.g. move
part under if(...)).
IMO, it reduces code maintainability.
--
Kirill A. Shutemov
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists