From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Yinghai Lu <yhlu.kernel@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] percpu fixes for 2.6.32-rc6
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 20:29:52 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4AFBF1B0.8010906@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20091112110741.GC24684@elte.hu>
Hello, Ingo.
11/12/2009 08:07 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> Well, the pcpu_alloc() function is 115 lines which is a bit long. It
> does 2-3 things while a function should try to do one thing.
I agree for low level / utility functions but for top level functions
which direct the flow of the whole logic, I usually prefer to put them
flat. To me, that way things seem less obfuscated.
> Putting the reserved allocation into a separate function also makes the
> 'main' path of logic more visible and obstructed less by rare details.
>
> The indentation i pinpointed is 4 levels deep:
>
> err = "failed to extend area map of "
> "reserved chunk";
>
> which is a bit too much IMO - the code starts in the middle of the
> screen, there's barely any space to do anything meaningful.
Well, all that's there is error exit. Surrounding code segment is,
if (pcpu_extend_area_map(chunk, new_alloc) < 0) {
err = "failed to extend area map of "
"reserved chunk";
goto fail_unlock_mutex;
}
So, we might as well just do
err = "failed to extend area map of reserved chunk";
if (pcpu_extend_area_map(chunk, new_alloc) < 0)
goto fail_unlock_mutex;
> But there's other line wrap artifacts as well further down:
>
> if (pcpu_extend_area_map(chunk,
> new_alloc) < 0) {
This one is uglier and one level deeper than the previous one. The
resulting nesting was one of the reasons why I factored out
pcpu_extend_area_map() as a whole and switched on the return value but
that obfuscated locking. Although it nests quite a bit, I don't think
the loop there is too bad. It shows what it does pretty well.
> But ... there's no hard rules here and i've seen functions where 4
> levels of indentation were just ok. Anyway, i just gave you my opinion,
> and i'm definitely more on the nitpicky side of the code quality
> equilibrium, YMMV.
Indentation and code style are actually something I end up spending
quite some time on and I did think about the second one. Factoring
out without hiding locking is a bit difficult but if I rename
new_alloc to new_len, I can fit that thing onto a single line but that
would probably require renaming matching local variable in
pcpu_extend_area_map() which will end up generating unnecessary amount
of diff obfuscating the real change. At that point, I just thought we
could live with one slightly ugly line break.
So, I don't know. Pros and cons on these things depend too much on
personal tastes (and even mood at the time of writing) to form uniform
standard to follow.
Thanks.
--
tejun
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-11-12 11:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-11-10 6:04 [GIT PULL] percpu fixes for 2.6.32-rc6 Tejun Heo
2009-11-10 17:10 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-11-10 18:33 ` Tejun Heo
2009-11-10 18:54 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-11-10 19:25 ` Tejun Heo
2009-11-10 19:37 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-11-10 19:50 ` Tejun Heo
2009-11-10 21:42 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-11-11 3:55 ` Tejun Heo
2009-11-11 11:31 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-11-11 12:21 ` Tejun Heo
2009-11-11 19:57 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-11-12 10:11 ` Tejun Heo
2009-11-12 10:36 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-11-12 10:58 ` Tejun Heo
2009-11-12 11:25 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-11-12 14:26 ` Oliver Neukum
2009-11-12 15:17 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-11-12 15:30 ` Tejun Heo
2009-11-12 15:45 ` Tejun Heo
2009-11-12 15:52 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-11-12 17:04 ` Andres Baldrich
2009-11-12 17:18 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-11-12 18:04 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-11-12 18:14 ` Andi Kleen
2009-11-12 11:07 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-11-12 11:29 ` Tejun Heo [this message]
2009-11-11 8:49 ` [PATCH percpu#for-linus] percpu: restructure pcpu_extend_area_map() to fix bugs and improve readability Tejun Heo
2009-11-11 19:25 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-11-10 19:44 ` [GIT PULL] percpu fixes for 2.6.32-rc6 Tejun Heo
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2009-11-13 3:53 Tejun Heo
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=4AFBF1B0.8010906@kernel.org \
--to=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=yhlu.kernel@gmail.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.