[Devel] Re: [PATCH 1/7] small cleanup for memcontrol.c

[Glauber Costa]

On 02/22/2012 12:01 PM, Glauber Costa wrote:
> On 02/22/2012 04:46 AM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
>> On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 15:34:33 +0400
>> Glauber Costa<glommer at parallels.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Move some hardcoded definitions to an enum type.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Glauber Costa<glommer at parallels.com>
>>> CC: Kirill A. Shutemov<kirill at shutemov.name>
>>> CC: Greg Thelen<gthelen at google.com>
>>> CC: Johannes Weiner<jweiner at redhat.com>
>>> CC: Michal Hocko<mhocko at suse.cz>
>>> CC: Hiroyouki Kamezawa<kamezawa.hiroyu at jp.fujitsu.com>
>>> CC: Paul Turner<pjt at google.com>
>>> CC: Frederic Weisbecker<fweisbec at gmail.com>
>>
>> seems ok to me.
>>
>> Acked-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki<kamezawa.hiroyu at jp.fujitsu.com>
>
> BTW, this series is likely to go through many rounds of discussion.
> This patch can be probably picked separately, if you want to.
>
>> a nitpick..
>>
>>> ---
>>> mm/memcontrol.c | 10 +++++++---
>>> 1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
>>> index 6728a7a..b15a693 100644
>>> --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
>>> +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
>>> @@ -351,9 +351,13 @@ enum charge_type {
>>> };
>>>
>>> /* for encoding cft->private value on file */
>>> -#define _MEM (0)
>>> -#define _MEMSWAP (1)
>>> -#define _OOM_TYPE (2)
>>> +
>>> +enum mem_type {
>>> + _MEM = 0,
>>
>> =0 is required ?
> I believe not, but I always liked to use it to be 100 % explicit.
> Personal taste... Can change it, if this is a big deal.

Kame, would you like me to send this cleanup without the = 0 ?