Re: [-mm patch] mm/memcontrol.c: clenups

Balbir Singh
2007-09-11T02:41:50Z

Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 10, 2007 at 01:53:19PM +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
>> Adrian Bunk wrote:
>>> On Fri, Aug 31, 2007 at 09:58:22PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>> Changes since 2.6.23-rc3-mm1:
>>>> ...
>>>> +memory-controller-add-switch-to-control-what-type-of-pages-to-limit-v7.patch
>>>> ...
>>>> memory containment
>>>> ...
>>> This patch makes the following needlessly global functions static:
>>> - lock_page_container()
>>> - unlock_page_container()
>>> - __mem_container_move_lists()
>>>
>>> Additionally, there was no reason for the "mem_control_type" object.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Adrian Bunk <bunk@kernel.org>
>>>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> mm/memcontrol.c | 8 ++++----
>>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> b582cc510b6b0a182dc56025828e7a3c566b9724
>>> diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
>>> index 8162d98..49bf04f 100644
>>> --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
>>> +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
>>> @@ -91,7 +91,7 @@ enum {
>>> MEM_CONTAINER_TYPE_CACHED,
>>> MEM_CONTAINER_TYPE_ALL,
>>> MEM_CONTAINER_TYPE_MAX,
>>> -} mem_control_type;
>>> +};
>>>
>> Not sure about this, is this the preferred style?
>> ...
>
>
> It's not about style - your "mem_control_type" was not an identifier,
> it was an (unused) variable.
>
>
> It seems the intended code was:
>
> enum mem_control_type {
> MEM_CONTAINER_TYPE_UNSPEC = 0,
> MEM_CONTAINER_TYPE_MAPPED,
> MEM_CONTAINER_TYPE_CACHED,
> MEM_CONTAINER_TYPE_ALL,
> MEM_CONTAINER_TYPE_MAX,
> };
>
>

Yes, thinking again, what you say makes sense.

--
Thanks,
Balbir Singh
Linux Technology Center
IBM, ISTL