Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] slightly rework memcg cache id determination

[Glauber Costa <glommer@gmail.com>]

On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 03:30:49PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 14-06-13 14:04:34, Glauber Costa wrote:
> > Michal,
> > 
> > Let me know if this is more acceptable to you. I didn't take your suggestion of
> > having an id and idx functions, because I think this could potentially be even
> > more confusing: in the sense that people would need to wonder a bit what is the
> > difference between them.
> 
> Any clean up is better than nothing. I still think that split up and
> making the 2 functions explicit would be better but I do not think this
> is really that important. 
> 
Being all the same to you, I prefer like this. At least while the users are self
contained and live inside memcg core. This is because I believe having two functions
can be a bit confusing, and while not *totally* confusing, the array-like users
are relatively few.

 
> OK. If you had an _idx variant then you wouldn't need to add that
> VM_BUG_ON at every single place where you use it as an index and do not
> risk that future calls would forget about VM_BUG_ON.
> 
> > For the other cases, I have consolidated a bit the usage pattern around
> > memcg_cache_id.  Now the tests are all pretty standardized.
> 
> OK, Great!
>  
Thanks Michal! Please take a look at the individual patches if you can.

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>