Re: [patch 02/28] pm_qos: clean up racy global "name" variable

[John Kacur]

On Sat, 10 Oct 2009, Jonathan Corbet wrote:

> On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 21:54:22 +0200 (CEST)
> John Kacur <jkacur@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > Hmnn, why 32? Seems arbitrary. At least you see with "process_1234567890" 
> > which is 19, an attempt to show what the maximum string size would be. If 
> > a system were configured to enlarge the maximum PID from 32767 to 4194303 
> > that would still only be 7 digits, so "process_1234567" - which is 16 
> > digits with the newline would enough.
> > 
> > So, I suggest you change that to
> > #define PID_NAME_LEN sizeof("process_1234567")
> 
> ...which works great until somebody enables 64-bit process IDs...:)
> 
> We're talking about 20 bytes of stack space in an almost-never-called
> function. I honestly don't think it's worth worrying about, but if
> somebody wants to tweak it, I'll not complain.
> 
> (Thanks for looking at the patch).
> 

It was a minor nit at best! My point was less about the stack space than 
the readability - which you could argue is a personal style choice here. 
There is nothing else to criticize in these patches. :)

Thomas, I reviewed all 28 patches and applied them.

Thanks

--
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/