Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] cpuset: PF_SPREAD_PAGE and PF_SPREAD_SLAB should be atomic flags

[Tetsuo Handa]

Zefan Li wrote:
> Those macros make the code easier to read, and emacs and cscope can also
> understand them.

I'm using legacy LXR which cannot understand them. But

> I'd vote for this:
> 
> TASK_PFA_TEST(NO_NEW_PRIVS, no_new_privs)
> TASK_PFA_SET(NO_NEW_PRIVS, no_new_privs)
> 
> TASK_PFA_TEST(SPREAD_PAGE, spread_page)
> TASK_PFA_SET(SPREAD_PAGE, spread_page)
> TASK_PFA_CLEAR(SPREAD_PAGE, spread_page)
> 
> TASK_PFA_TEST(SPREAD_SLAB, spread_slab)
> TASK_PFA_SET(SPREAD_SLAB, spread_slab)
> TASK_PFA_CLEAR(SPREAD_SLAB, spread_slab)
> 
> over this:

you can go ahead. This difference is not a stopper.

Tejun Heo wrote:
> All the patches look good to me.  I can't say I'm a big fan of
> function defining macros but I don't have prettier alternatives
> either.  Once Peter/Ingo acks the patches, I'll route them through
> cgroup/for-3.17-fixes.

Peter and Ingo, are these patches OK for you?
--
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/