From: "Rakib Mullick" <rakib.mullick@gmail.com>
To: "Paul Jackson" <pj@sgi.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cgroup.c: Some 'hlist_head' function fixes.
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 18:12:37 +0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <b9df5fa10808120512wb7f684bgdbcd7ab3f86d25a5@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20080811222942.a7998c43.pj@sgi.com>
On 8/12/08, Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com> wrote:
> > Is it [text size] the only criteria to judge this patch ?
>
> No - not the only criteria, as the patch combines a couple of
> changes.
>
> > What about the use of "unsigned long", instead of int.
>
> I had missed that change, even though you had explicitly
>
> described it in your patch comment, when you wrote:
>
> 2. As hash_long returns with unsigned long we need a unsigned long
>
>
> How about just casting the hash_long() result to int:
>
> index = (int)hash_long(tmp, CSS_SET_HASH_BITS);
Yes, it looks good.
>
> Since we are using this 'index' to index an array,
> it had better fit in an 'int', which indeed it does
> as CSS_SET_HASH_BITS is 7, which constrains the output
> of hash_long to [0 .. 2^7-1], that is between 0 and 127.
>
> However ... looking around the kernel, I see that most other
> uses of hash_long(), except in cases where the second argument
> (bit size) might actually exceed 32 bits, either directly
> index some array with the result, or else assign the result
> to a temporary 'int'.
>
> And the compiler does not complain that we're assigning a
> long to an int.
>
> So ... what's the problem?
Yes, maybe your right. Ok, I'll go through the code again. If it's
good then I'm happy.
>
> I see nothing in this patch of value.
>
> Am I missing something?
>
> -----
>
> I just noticed that you had dropped the other recipients
> from this email thread, a couple of replies ago. My
> preference would have been to have this discussion in
> public. I prefer not to drop people from CC lists on
> email threads.
Yes, I've noticed it too. I just forgot to do that. Actually, when I
reply to thread, I just think about that one. This could be a reason
for missing.
Thanks.
>
>
> --
>
> I won't rest till it's the best ...
> Programmer, Linux Scalability
> Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com> 1.940.382.4214
>
prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-08-12 12:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-08-08 15:29 Rakib Mullick
2008-08-09 21:07 ` Paul Jackson
[not found] ` <b9df5fa10808100036h35e2c461je9139516f724687@mail.gmail.com>
[not found] ` <20080810220816.105d66ea.pj@sgi.com>
[not found] ` <b9df5fa10808110202w38930bb3oa492284f1c072f1f@mail.gmail.com>
[not found] ` <20080811222942.a7998c43.pj@sgi.com>
2008-08-12 12:12 ` Rakib Mullick [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=b9df5fa10808120512wb7f684bgdbcd7ab3f86d25a5@mail.gmail.com \
--to=rakib.mullick@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pj@sgi.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®