Re: [patch 3/6] mempolicy: add MPOL_F_STATIC_NODES flag

[David Rientjes]

On Tue, 26 Feb 2008, Paul Jackson wrote:

> >         return do_mbind(start, len, mode, mode_flags, &nodes, flags);
> 
> The intermingling of 'flags', 'mode' and 'mode_flags' to refer to the
> low bits, the high bits or all the bits of the flags field is handled
> fairly carefully in your patch, but can still be a bit difficult to
> keep track of which is which when reading.
> 
> I'll wager not many readers can immediately say what the 'mode',
> 'mode_flags' and 'flags' refer to, in the above code snippet, for
> example.
> 
> Do you have any suggestions on how to further improve the clarity of
> this code?
> 

This is a natural implementation detail to accomodate your insistance that 
the mode and flags be passed as separate actuals throughout many of the 
mm/mempolicy.c functions.

No reader is going to understand immediately what 'mode', 'mode_flags', 
and 'flags' are if you only provide a single line of the code like that. 

It becomes rather obvious what they represent when you read the entire 
sys_mbind() implementation, which is serving a syscall that provides its 
own formal for passing flags.  The name 'mode_flags' is exactly what it 
is: flags for the mempolicy mode.

		David
--
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/