From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965412AbbEMR3M (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 May 2015 13:29:12 -0400 Received: from mail-qk0-f181.google.com ([209.85.220.181]:34134 "EHLO mail-qk0-f181.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933896AbbEMR3K (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 May 2015 13:29:10 -0400 Date: Wed, 13 May 2015 13:29:06 -0400 From: Tejun Heo To: Aleksa Sarai Cc: lizefan@huawei.com, mingo@redhat.com, Peter Zijlstra , richard@nod.at, =?iso-8859-1?Q?Fr=E9d=E9ric?= Weisbecker , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 4/4] cgroups: implement the PIDs subsystem Message-ID: <20150513172906.GY11388@htj.duckdns.org> References: <1429446154-10660-1-git-send-email-cyphar@cyphar.com> <1429446154-10660-5-git-send-email-cyphar@cyphar.com> <20150422162954.GF10738@htj.duckdns.org> <20150424153657.GC24029@htj.duckdns.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hello, On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 03:04:52AM +1000, Aleksa Sarai wrote: > Would you be okay with this? > > if (limit < 0 || limit >= PIDS_MAX) > > I'd prefer if we used PIDS_MAX as the maximum input value as well as > being the internal representation of the maximum, rather than > switching to something like INT_MAX. Yeah, that sounds okay to me but I forgot why we went for INT_MAX in the first place. Do you remember why we tried INT_MAX at all? Thanks. -- tejun