Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 26 Feb 2008 13:02:54 -0800 (PST) | From | David Rientjes <> | Subject | Re: [patch 3/6] mempolicy: add MPOL_F_STATIC_NODES flag |
| |
On Tue, 26 Feb 2008, Paul Jackson wrote:
> > return do_mbind(start, len, mode, mode_flags, &nodes, flags); > > The intermingling of 'flags', 'mode' and 'mode_flags' to refer to the > low bits, the high bits or all the bits of the flags field is handled > fairly carefully in your patch, but can still be a bit difficult to > keep track of which is which when reading. > > I'll wager not many readers can immediately say what the 'mode', > 'mode_flags' and 'flags' refer to, in the above code snippet, for > example. > > Do you have any suggestions on how to further improve the clarity of > this code? >
This is a natural implementation detail to accomodate your insistance that the mode and flags be passed as separate actuals throughout many of the mm/mempolicy.c functions.
No reader is going to understand immediately what 'mode', 'mode_flags', and 'flags' are if you only provide a single line of the code like that.
It becomes rather obvious what they represent when you read the entire sys_mbind() implementation, which is serving a syscall that provides its own formal for passing flags. The name 'mode_flags' is exactly what it is: flags for the mempolicy mode.
David
| |