Re: [Lse-tech] Re: [PATCH 2.6.9-rc2 2/2] enhanced MM accounting datacollection

[Jay Lan]

Paul Jackson wrote:
> nits:
>
> 1) I'm not sure the "no-op if CONFIG_CSA not set" comments
>    are worthwhile - it does not seem to be a common practice
>    to mark macros that collapse under certain CONFIG's with
>    such comments, and some code, such as in fork.c, would
>    become quite a bit less readable if such comments were
>    widely used.

Yeah, that makes sense. Will be fixed in next posting.

> 2) Three of the added csa_update_integrals() lines have
>    leading spaces, instead of a tab char, such as in:
>
> ===================================================================
> --- linux.orig/fs/exec.c	2004-09-27 11:57:40.201435722 -0700
> +++ linux/fs/exec.c	2004-09-27 14:05:41.266160725 -0700
> @@ -1163,6 +1164,9 @@
>  
>  		/* execve success */
>  		security_bprm_free(&bprm);
> +		/* no-op if CONFIG_CSA not set */
> +                csa_update_integrals();		<=========
> +                update_mem_hiwater();			<=========
>  		return retval;
>  	}

Caused by 'cut-n-paste'. Will be fixed.

>  
> 3) Is it always the case that csa_update_integrals() and
>    update_mem_hiwater() are used together?  If so, perhaps
>    they could be collapsed into one?  Even the current->mm
>    test inside them could be made one test, perhaps?

As Robin pointed out, there are a couple of instances that are
not the case. Actually there are three.

Thanks for your feedback, Paul!

 - jay

-
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/