From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753235Ab1HKI0r (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Aug 2011 04:26:47 -0400 Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:60480 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753279Ab1HKI0n (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Aug 2011 04:26:43 -0400 Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 10:26:41 +0200 From: Michal Hocko To: Raghavendra K T Cc: Raghavendra K T , Arend van Spriel , Greg Kroah-Hartman , "David S. Miller" , "nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp" , Balbir Singh , "John W. Linville" , Mauro Carvalho Chehab , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Ying Han , Andrew Morton , KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , Srivatsa Vaddagiri Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2][cleanup] memcg: renaming of mem variable to memcg Message-ID: <20110811082641.GD8023@tiehlicka.suse.cz> References: <20110810172917.23280.9440.sendpatchset@oc5400248562.ibm.com> <20110811075337.GA8023@tiehlicka.suse.cz> <4E438FD3.7070000@linux.vnet.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4E438FD3.7070000@linux.vnet.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu 11-08-11 13:46:19, Raghavendra K T wrote: > On 08/11/2011 01:23 PM, Michal Hocko wrote: > >On Wed 10-08-11 22:59:17, Raghavendra K T wrote: > >>Hi, > >> This is the memcg cleanup patch for that was talked little ago to change the "struct > >> mem_cgroup *mem" variable to "struct mem_cgroup *memcg". > >> > >> The patch is though trivial, it is huge one. > >> Testing : Compile tested with following configurations. > >> 1) CONFIG_CGROUP_MEM_RES_CTLR=y CONFIG_CGROUP_MEM_RES_CTLR_SWAP=y > >> 2) CONFIG_CGROUP_MEM_RES_CTLR=y CONFIG_CGROUP_MEM_RES_CTLR_SWAP=n > >> 3) CONFIG_CGROUP_MEM_RES_CTLR=n CONFIG_CGROUP_MEM_RES_CTLR_SWAP=n > > > >How exactly have you tested? Compiled and compared before/after binaries > >(it shouldn't change, right)? > Yes, But idea was to ensure that both #ifdef and #else part are hit > during compilation, which could expose some corrections needed. I am not sure I understand. You have used different combinations of configuration to trigger all #ifdefs but that doesn't change anything on the fact that the code should be exactly same before and after your patch, right? -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs SUSE LINUX s.r.o. Lihovarska 1060/12 190 00 Praha 9 Czech Republic