Re: [patch] 2.4.19-pre10-ac2: O(1) scheduler merge, -A3.

[Robert Love <rml@tech9.net>]

On Sun, 2002-06-16 at 20:49, Ingo Molnar wrote:

> i agree with the comment fixes, except these items:
> 
> > -	if (unlikely(in_interrupt()))
> > -		BUG();
> > +	BUG_ON(in_interrupt());
> > +
> 
> see the previous mail.

Shrug.  Preference I guess... though this is _the_ case for BUG_ON.

> > @@ -1790,4 +1790,4 @@
> >  		while (!cpu_rq(cpu_logical_map(cpu))->migration_thread)
> >  			schedule_timeout(2);
> >  }
> > -#endif
> > +#endif /* CONFIG_SMP */
> 
> and this is just silly... I can see the point in doing #if comments in
> include files, but the nesting here is just so obvious.

I disagree, but OK.  I like having the #if marked by the #endif if they
are not close... and elsewhere through the kernel mirrors this.  While I
can scroll up and look - assuming the nesting is sane - a simple comment
makes that clear so what is the pain?

> the rest looks fine. (patch of my current 2.5 scheduler tree attached,
> against 2.5.22, with some more other nonfunctional bits added as well.)

Rest looks fine.

Then again, this is all invariants and comments so its really not a big
deal at all.  I guess better this than we are fighting over real code,
eh? ;-)

	Robert Love