Re: [PATCH] OOM killer meets userspace headers

[Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>]

Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 19, 2006 at 05:12:19AM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
> 
>>Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, Oct 19, 2006 at 01:05:53AM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>+#define OOM_ADJUST_MIN (-16)
>>>>>+#define OOM_ADJUST_MAX 15
>>>>
>>>>Why do you need the () for the -ves?
>>>
>>>
>>>-16 is two tokens. Not that someone is going to do huge arithmetic with
>>>OOM adjustments and screwup himself, but still...
>>
>>How can they screw themselves up? AFAIKS, the - directly to the left
>>of the literal will bind more tightly than any other valid operator.
> 
> 
> Hmmm... c.l.c lists two reasons: a) =- being synonym of -= in pre-ANSI
> days, and b) fat fingers
> 
> 	#define EOF -1
> 	while ((c = getchar()) != 3 EOF)

I can't say I care about those problems to justify the uglification
(or churning the tree).

If the operator were legitimately able to leak out, obviously () is
a good thing. Otherwise...

-- 
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com