From: Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com>
To: Li Zefan <lizf@cn.fujitsu.com>
Cc: seto.hidetoshi@jp.fujitsu.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
menage@google.com, peterz@infradead.org,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, laijs@cn.fujitsu.com
Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH] cpuset: fix wrong calculation of relax domain level
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 15:09:16 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080717150916.bf0ca765.pj@sgi.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <487F1B38.3050100@cn.fujitsu.com>
In looking at this, I notice something I should have questioned before.
The include/linux/sched.h code:
struct sched_domain_attr {
int relax_domain_level;
};
#define SD_ATTR_INIT (struct sched_domain_attr) { \
.relax_domain_level = -1, \
}
and the associated passing of relax_domain_level's embedded inside
a kmalloc'c struct sched_domain_attr 'dattr' seems like excessive
obfuscating apparatus to me. Unless someone has short term plans
to be adding some other attributes to this sched_domain_attr, I
suspect it would make more sense just to pass relax_domain_level's
as explicit lvalues, dropping all this attr stuff.
Adding unnecessary abstractions 'for future growth' is usually a
bad idea. It impedes current code understanding more than it aids
future code growth.
--
I won't rest till it's the best ...
Programmer, Linux Scalability
Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com> 1.940.382.4214
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-07-17 20:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-07-17 8:07 [RFC] [PATCH] cpuset: fix wrong calculation of relax domain level Li Zefan
2008-07-17 8:57 ` Hidetoshi Seto
2008-07-17 10:13 ` Li Zefan
2008-07-17 20:09 ` Paul Jackson [this message]
2008-07-17 20:28 ` Paul Jackson
2008-07-18 0:26 ` Hidetoshi Seto
2008-07-18 0:35 ` Paul Jackson
2008-07-18 2:36 ` Li Zefan
2008-07-18 2:43 ` Paul Jackson
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20080717150916.bf0ca765.pj@sgi.com \
--to=pj@sgi.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=laijs@cn.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lizf@cn.fujitsu.com \
--cc=menage@google.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=seto.hidetoshi@jp.fujitsu.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.