Re: [PATCH] pre7-1 semicolon & nicely readableB

From: Chris Evans (chris@ferret.lmh.ox.ac.uk)
Date: Tue May 02 2000 - 05:54:19 EST

Next message: Chris Evans: "Re: Password access to re-add capabilities to running kernel"
Previous message: Michal Vitecek: "Re: fchown() on a socket"
In reply to: Rik van Riel: "Re: [PATCH] pre7-1 semicolon & nicely readableB"
Next in thread: Rik van Riel: "Re: [PATCH] pre7-1 semicolon & nicely readableB"
Reply: Rik van Riel: "Re: [PATCH] pre7-1 semicolon & nicely readableB"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Mon, 1 May 2000, Rik van Riel wrote:

> I want to inform you that you're wrong. The only difference is
> in readability.

[..]

> In fact, the <10 test is only there to prevent infinite looping
> for when a process with 0 swap_cnt "slips through" the tests above.

If such a value should never "slip through", then, for readability, you
want an assert (e.g. BUG() ).

Chris

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Next message: Chris Evans: "Re: Password access to re-add capabilities to running kernel"
Previous message: Michal Vitecek: "Re: fchown() on a socket"
In reply to: Rik van Riel: "Re: [PATCH] pre7-1 semicolon & nicely readableB"
Next in thread: Rik van Riel: "Re: [PATCH] pre7-1 semicolon & nicely readableB"
Reply: Rik van Riel: "Re: [PATCH] pre7-1 semicolon & nicely readableB"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun May 07 2000 - 21:00:10 EST