[lkml]   [2006]   [Oct]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] OOM killer meets userspace headers
Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 19, 2006 at 05:12:19AM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
>>Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
>>>On Thu, Oct 19, 2006 at 01:05:53AM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
>>>>>+#define OOM_ADJUST_MIN (-16)
>>>>>+#define OOM_ADJUST_MAX 15
>>>>Why do you need the () for the -ves?
>>>-16 is two tokens. Not that someone is going to do huge arithmetic with
>>>OOM adjustments and screwup himself, but still...
>>How can they screw themselves up? AFAIKS, the - directly to the left
>>of the literal will bind more tightly than any other valid operator.
> Hmmm... c.l.c lists two reasons: a) =- being synonym of -= in pre-ANSI
> days, and b) fat fingers
> #define EOF -1
> while ((c = getchar()) != 3 EOF)

I can't say I care about those problems to justify the uglification
(or churning the tree).

If the operator were legitimately able to leak out, obviously () is
a good thing. Otherwise...

SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
Send instant messages to your online friends

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2006-10-18 21:37    [W:0.044 / U:17.892 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site