Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [patch 3/6] mempolicy: add MPOL_F_STATIC_NODES flag | From | Lee Schermerhorn <> | Date | Tue, 26 Feb 2008 16:32:46 -0500 |
| |
On Tue, 2008-02-26 at 13:02 -0800, David Rientjes wrote: > 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.
Not to be confused with the MPOL_MF_* flags which are MemPOLicy Mbind Flags passed via the flags parameter. Nor the other MPOL_F_* flags which are get_mempolicy() flags, also passed via the flags arg.
:-)
Later, Lee > > David
| |