Dave Hansen wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-07-05 at 22:21 -0700, Balbir Singh wrote:
>> +struct mem_container {
>> +	struct container_subsys_state css;
>> +	/*
>> +	 * the counter to account for memory usage
>> +	 */
>> +	struct res_counter res;
>> +};
> 
> How about we call it "memory_usage"?  That would kill two birds with one
> stone: get rid of the comment, and keep people from needing to refer to
> the comment to figure out what "res" *IS*. 
> 

Hmm.. res is the closest to resource counter. res_cnt is confusing.
res is a generic resource definition to indicate that we are dealing
with generic resource counters.

>> +/*
>> + * A meta page is associated with every page descriptor. The meta page
>> + * helps us identify information about the container
>> + */
>> +struct meta_page {
>> +	struct list_head list;		/* per container LRU list */
>> +	struct page *page;
>> +	struct mem_container *mem_container;
>> +};
> 
> Why not just rename "list" to "lru_list" or "container_lru"?
> 

I think just lru might be fine, meta_page->lru == container LRU.

>> +
>> +static inline struct mem_container *mem_container_from_cont(struct container
>> +								*cnt)
> 
> I'd probably break that line up differently:
> 
> static inline
> struct mem_container *mem_container_from_cont(struct container *cnt)
> 

Yes, that's better.

> BTW, do I see "cnt" meaning "container" now instead of "cnt"?  ;)
> 

Nope, I'll fix it to be cont

> Is somebody's favorite dog named "cnt" and you're just trying to remind
> yourself of them as often as possible?
> 

It's an easy shorthands to use, like i or ref, num.

> -- Dave
> 


-- 
	Warm Regards,
	Balbir Singh
	Linux Technology Center
	IBM, ISTL
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers