[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:0.020 / U:7.532 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site