![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
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 | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2008-02-26 22:05 [W:1.230 / U:0.020 seconds] ©2003-2008 Jasper Spaans | |||||||||||||