Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1752589AbbDQUmL (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Fri, 17 Apr 2015 16:42:11 -0400
Received: from mail-qc0-f177.google.com ([209.85.216.177]:34110 "EHLO
	mail-qc0-f177.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751280AbbDQUmJ (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 17 Apr 2015 16:42:09 -0400
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2015 16:42:06 -0400
From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@cyphar.com>
Cc: lizefan@huawei.com, mingo@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org, richard@nod.at,
        =?iso-8859-1?Q?Fr=E9d=E9ric?= Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 3/4] cgroups: allow a cgroup subsystem to reject a fork
Message-ID: <20150417204206.GI16743@htj.duckdns.org>
References: <1428799917-15141-1-git-send-email-cyphar@cyphar.com>
 <1428799917-15141-4-git-send-email-cyphar@cyphar.com>
 <20150413142439.GA2596@htj.duckdns.org>
 <CAOviyajqc_ip2Lpa5NTLLXxQ7JghYXg1UL3vXDdpbbnhmsfXEQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20150414121732.GL2596@htj.duckdns.org>
 <CAOviyaj6eQ6s50+DrQN8yFAp7q5Y6b4ReFOT8XT0UufPb5J0xQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20150417144519.GC1954@htj.duckdns.org>
 <CAOviyagcvtpDL1OONXR_-fX6X6N+-KfDw5mmpn=iQU+ZNps02g@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAOviyagcvtpDL1OONXR_-fX6X6N+-KfDw5mmpn=iQU+ZNps02g@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 900
Lines: 26

On Sat, Apr 18, 2015 at 06:35:41AM +1000, Aleksa Sarai wrote:
> >> Do you also want me to completely drop the COUNT macro? IMO it makes
> >> the CGROUP_<TAG>_COUNT consolidation much nicer.
> >
> > What's wrong with simply having start and end tags?
> 
> Because you'd have to write (CGROUP_TAG_END - CGROUP_TAG_START) every
> time? It's a small addition and it makes referencing the range of a
> tagged section much easier.

Wouldn't loops look more like

	for (subsys = CGROUP_TAG_START; subsys < CGROUP_TAG_END; subsys++)

And even if not, just define a separate macro for the length.  It's
not like we're gonna have a lot of tags.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/