From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 11:20:30 -0700 (PDT) From: Christoph Lameter Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC 4/5] Mem Policy: cpuset-independent interleave policy In-Reply-To: <1189690357.5013.19.camel@localhost> Message-ID: References: <20070830185053.22619.96398.sendpatchset@localhost> <20070830185122.22619.56636.sendpatchset@localhost> <46E86148.9060400@google.com> <1189690357.5013.19.camel@localhost> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Lee Schermerhorn Cc: Ethan Solomita , linux-mm@kvack.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, ak@suse.de, mtk-manpages@gmx.net, eric.whitney@hp.com List-ID: On Thu, 13 Sep 2007, Lee Schermerhorn wrote: > On Wed, 2007-09-12 at 14:59 -0700, Ethan Solomita wrote: > > Just one code note: > > > > Lee Schermerhorn wrote: > > > - return nodes_equal(a->v.nodes, b->v.nodes); > > > + return a->policy & MPOL_CONTEXT || > > > + nodes_equal(a->v.nodes, b->v.nodes); > > > > For the sake of my sanity, can we add () around a->policy & > > MPOL_CONTEXT? 8-) This falls into order of precedence that I don't trust > > myself to memorize. > > I agree and I would have done that, but then someone would have dinged > me for "unneeded parentheses"--despite the fact that I can't find > anything in the style guide about this [except in the bit about macro > definitions that says to always add parentheses around expressions > defining constants]. Can't win for losin' :-(. What Mel suggests is correct. -- 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: email@kvack.org