Re: [PATCH] staging: android: lowmemorykiller.c: Fix checkpatch warning

[Greg Kroah-Hartman]

On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 11:19:41AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Thu, 2016-09-01 at 17:36 +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 06:26:48PM +0300, Andrey Utkin wrote:
> > > 
> > > On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 11:10:25AM -0400, Anson Jacob wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > Fix checkpatch.pl 'line over 80 characters' warning
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Anson Jacob <ansonjacob.aj@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > >  drivers/staging/android/lowmemorykiller.c | 4 ++--
> > > >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/android/lowmemorykiller.c b/drivers/staging/android/lowmemorykiller.c
> > > > index 45a1b4e..80d7adf 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/staging/android/lowmemorykiller.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/staging/android/lowmemorykiller.c
> > > > @@ -92,8 +92,8 @@ static unsigned long lowmem_scan(struct shrinker *s, struct shrink_control *sc)
> > > >  	int array_size = ARRAY_SIZE(lowmem_adj);
> > > >  	int other_free = global_page_state(NR_FREE_PAGES) - totalreserve_pages;
> > > >  	int other_file = global_node_page_state(NR_FILE_PAGES) -
> > > > -						global_node_page_state(NR_SHMEM) -
> > > > -						total_swapcache_pages();
> > > > +				global_node_page_state(NR_SHMEM) -
> > > > +				total_swapcache_pages();
> > > >  
> > > >  	if (lowmem_adj_size < array_size)
> > > >  		array_size = lowmem_adj_size;
> > > Indeed original alignment on opening brace here doesn't make sense.
> > > I don't mind if your patch gets accepted, but out of curiosity I have opened
> > > this file in vim with kernel coding style plugin loaded
> > > (https://github.com/vivien/vim-linux-coding-style), selected the affected
> > > lines, and reindented the selection by pressing 'gq'. It ended up with this,
> > > being both shorter and simpler:
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/android/lowmemorykiller.c b/drivers/staging/android/lowmemorykiller.c
> > > index 45a1b4e..3aef467 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/staging/android/lowmemorykiller.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/staging/android/lowmemorykiller.c
> > > @@ -92,8 +92,7 @@ static unsigned long lowmem_scan(struct shrinker *s, struct shrink_control *sc)
> > >  	int array_size = ARRAY_SIZE(lowmem_adj);
> > >  	int other_free = global_page_state(NR_FREE_PAGES) - totalreserve_pages;
> > >  	int other_file = global_node_page_state(NR_FILE_PAGES) -
> > > -						global_node_page_state(NR_SHMEM) -
> > > -						total_swapcache_pages();
> > > +		global_node_page_state(NR_SHMEM) - total_swapcache_pages();
> > The original patch here is nicer to read, don't you think?
> 
> Strictly, these should probably be unsigned long instead of int
> as that's the return type of global_[node_]page_state().
> 
> Maybe something like the below, but then maybe other_free/file
> should become unsigned long too.
> ---
>  drivers/staging/android/lowmemorykiller.c | 9 +++++----
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/android/lowmemorykiller.c b/drivers/staging/android/lowmemorykiller.c
> index 45a1b4e..e8e1eaf 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/android/lowmemorykiller.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/android/lowmemorykiller.c
> @@ -90,10 +90,11 @@ static unsigned long lowmem_scan(struct shrinker *s, struct shrink_control *sc)
>  	int selected_tasksize = 0;
>  	short selected_oom_score_adj;
>  	int array_size = ARRAY_SIZE(lowmem_adj);
> -	int other_free = global_page_state(NR_FREE_PAGES) - totalreserve_pages;
> -	int other_file = global_node_page_state(NR_FILE_PAGES) -
> -						global_node_page_state(NR_SHMEM) -
> -						total_swapcache_pages();
> +	unsigned long nr_free = global_page_state(NR_FREE_PAGES);
> +	unsigned long nr_file = global_node_page_state(NR_FILE_PAGES);
> +	unsigned long nr_shmem = global_node_page_state(NR_SHMEM);
> +	int other_free = nr_free - totalreserve_pages;
> +	int other_file = nr_file - nr_shmem - total_swapcache_pages();
>  
>  	if (lowmem_adj_size < array_size)
>  		array_size = lowmem_adj_size;

I like it, much easier to follow.  Care to resend it in a patch form I
can apply it in?

thanks,

greg k-h