Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 08 Nov 2012 14:00:34 +0900 | From | Kamezawa Hiroyuki <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 6/9] cgroup_freezer: make freezer->state mask of flags |
| |
(2012/11/08 13:42), Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, Kame. > > On Thu, Nov 08, 2012 at 01:37:50PM +0900, Kamezawa Hiroyuki wrote: >> How about >> enum { >> __CGROUP_FREEZING, >> __CGROUP_FROZEN, >> }; >> >> #define CGROUP_FREEZER_STATE_MASK 0x3 >> #define CGROUP_FREEZER_STATE(state) ((state) & CGROUP_FREEZER_STATE_MASK) >> #define CGROUP_THAW(state) (CGROUP_FREEZER_STATE(state) == 0) >> #define CGROUP_FREEZING(state) (CGROUP_FREEZER_STATE(state) == __CGROUP_FREEZING) >> #define CGROUP_FROZEN(state)\ >> (CGROUP_FREEZER_STATE(state) == (__CGROUP_FREEZING | __CGROUP_FROZEN)) > > I think it's a bit overdone and we have cases where we test for > FREEZING regardless of FROZEN and cases where test for FREEZING && > !FROZEN. We can have, say, CGROUP_FREZING() and then > CGROUP_FREEZING_BUT_NOT_FROZEN(), but it feels more like obfuscation > than anything else. >
Hm, then, I'm glad if I can see what combinations of flags are valid and meanings of them in source code comments.
Anyway, Reviewed-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
| |