Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 16 Oct 2009 08:52:08 +0900 | From | KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 6/9] swap_info: swap_map of chars not shorts |
| |
On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 23:17:20 +0100 (BST) Hugh Dickins <hugh.dickins@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Oct 2009, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > > On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 01:53:52 +0100 (BST) > > Hugh Dickins <hugh.dickins@tiscali.co.uk> wrote: > > > @@ -1175,6 +1175,12 @@ static int try_to_unuse(unsigned int typ > > > * If that's wrong, then we should worry more about > > > * exit_mmap() and do_munmap() cases described above: > > > * we might be resetting SWAP_MAP_MAX too early here. > > > + * > > > + * Yes, that's wrong: though very unlikely, swap count 0x7ffe > > > + * could surely occur if pid_max raised from PID_MAX_DEFAULT; > > > > Just a nitpick. > > > > Hmm, logically, our MAX COUNT is 0x7e after this patch. Then, how about not > > mentioning to 0x7ffe and PID_MAX ? as.. > > > > Yes, that's wrong: we now use SWAP_MAP_MAX as 0x7e, very easy to overflow. > > next patch will... > > Perhaps we're reading it differently: I was there inserting a comment > on what was already said above (with no wish to change that existing > comment), then going on (immediately below) to mention how this patch > is now lowering SWAP_MAP_MAX to 0x7e, making the situation even worse, > but no worries because the next patch fixes it. > yes.
> If you are seeing a nit there, I'm afraid it's one too small for my > eye!
I don't think it's very troublesome, but in these days, people seems to love "bisect", Then, comments for change and comments for code should be divided, IMHO.
> And the lifetime of this comment, in Linus's git history, will > be (I'm guessing) a fraction of a second - becoming a non-issue, it > rightly gets deleted in the next patch.
ya, thanks.
Regards, -Kame
| |