Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 19 Oct 2006 05:34:33 +1000 | From | Nick Piggin <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] OOM killer meets userspace headers |
| |
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
- 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/
| |