Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 10 Sep 2007 23:59:27 +0200 | From | Adrian Bunk <> | Subject | Re: [-mm patch] mm/memcontrol.c: clenups |
| |
On Mon, Sep 10, 2007 at 01:53:19PM +0530, Balbir Singh wrote: > Adrian Bunk wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 31, 2007 at 09:58:22PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > >> ... > >> Changes since 2.6.23-rc3-mm1: > >> ... > >> +memory-controller-add-switch-to-control-what-type-of-pages-to-limit-v7.patch > >> ... > >> memory containment > >> ... > > > > This patch makes the following needlessly global functions static: > > - lock_page_container() > > - unlock_page_container() > > - __mem_container_move_lists() > > > > Additionally, there was no reason for the "mem_control_type" object. > > > > Signed-off-by: Adrian Bunk <bunk@kernel.org> > > > > --- > > > > mm/memcontrol.c | 8 ++++---- > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > > > b582cc510b6b0a182dc56025828e7a3c566b9724 > > diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c > > index 8162d98..49bf04f 100644 > > --- a/mm/memcontrol.c > > +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c > > @@ -91,7 +91,7 @@ enum { > > MEM_CONTAINER_TYPE_CACHED, > > MEM_CONTAINER_TYPE_ALL, > > MEM_CONTAINER_TYPE_MAX, > > -} mem_control_type; > > +}; > > > > Not sure about this, is this the preferred style? >...
It's not about style - your "mem_control_type" was not an identifier, it was an (unused) variable.
It seems the intended code was:
enum mem_control_type { MEM_CONTAINER_TYPE_UNSPEC = 0, MEM_CONTAINER_TYPE_MAPPED, MEM_CONTAINER_TYPE_CACHED, MEM_CONTAINER_TYPE_ALL, MEM_CONTAINER_TYPE_MAX, };
cu Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. "Only a promise," Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |