Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 11 Sep 2007 08:11:38 +0530 | From | Balbir Singh <> | Subject | Re: [-mm patch] mm/memcontrol.c: clenups |
| |
Adrian Bunk wrote: > 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, > }; > >
Yes, thinking again, what you say makes sense.
-- Thanks, Balbir Singh Linux Technology Center IBM, ISTL - 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/
| |