From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail143.messagelabs.com (mail143.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.35]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E6E76B0258 for ; Thu, 6 Oct 2011 04:39:37 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4E8D6923.7080404@parallels.com> Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2011 12:38:59 +0400 From: Glauber Costa MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 6/8] tcp buffer limitation: per-cgroup limit References: <1317730680-24352-1-git-send-email-glommer@parallels.com> <1317730680-24352-7-git-send-email-glommer@parallels.com> <1317732535.2440.6.camel@edumazet-HP-Compaq-6005-Pro-SFF-PC> <4E8C1064.3030902@parallels.com> <1317805090.2473.28.camel@edumazet-HP-Compaq-6005-Pro-SFF-PC> In-Reply-To: <1317805090.2473.28.camel@edumazet-HP-Compaq-6005-Pro-SFF-PC> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Eric Dumazet Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, paul@paulmenage.org, lizf@cn.fujitsu.com, kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com, ebiederm@xmission.com, davem@davemloft.net, gthelen@google.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, kirill@shutemov.name, avagin@parallels.com, devel@openvz.org On 10/05/2011 12:58 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote: > Le mercredi 05 octobre 2011 =C3=A0 12:08 +0400, Glauber Costa a =C3=A9cri= t : >> On 10/04/2011 04:48 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote: > >>> 2) Could you add const qualifiers when possible to your pointers ? >> >> Well, I'll go over the patches again and see where I can add them. >> Any specific place site you're concerned about? > > Everywhere its possible : > > It helps reader to instantly knows if a function is about to change some > part of the object or only read it, without reading function body. Sure it does. So, give me your opinion on this: most of the acessors inside struct sock do not modify the pointers, but return an address of an element inside it (that can later on be modified by the caller. I think it is fine for the purpose of clarity, but to avoid warnings we=20 end up having to do stuff like this: +#define CONSTCG(m) ((struct mem_cgroup *)(m)) +long *tcp_sysctl_mem(const struct mem_cgroup *memcg) +{ + return CONSTCG(memcg)->tcp.tcp_prot_mem; +} Is it acceptable? -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: email@kvack.org