Re: [PATCH 6/9] cgroup_freezer: make freezer->state mask of flags

[Kamezawa Hiroyuki]

(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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>


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