All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Cong Wang <amwang@redhat.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] percpu: explain quick paths in pcpu_[de]populate_chunk()
Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2009 10:02:00 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4B147918.3000503@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4B145CE9.1060608@kernel.org>

Tejun Heo wrote:
> pcpu_[de]populate_chunk() check whether there's actually any work to
> do at the beginning and exit early if not.  This checking is done by
> seeing whether the first iteration of pcpu_for_each_[un]pop_region()
> covers the whole requested region.  The resulting code is a bit
> unusual in that it's loop-like but never loops which apparently
> confuses people.  Add comments to explain it.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
> Reported-by: Amerigo Wang <amwang@redhat.com>
> Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux-foundation.org>
> ---
> Added to percpu#for-next.  This should be clear enough, right?
> 

Nope, comments can never fix bad code.

Since these two break statements are intentional, why not use if?
Logically, the following two are equalent.

for(a1; a2; a3){
     if (a4)
        return;
     break;
}


a1;
if (a2) {
    if (a4)
        return;
}


And the latter is much more readable than the former.

  reply	other threads:[~2009-12-01  1:59 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2009-11-30  9:12 [Patch] percpu: remove two suspicious break statements Amerigo Wang
2009-11-30 11:09 ` Tejun Heo
2009-11-30 19:01   ` Christoph Lameter
2009-12-01  0:01     ` [PATCH] percpu: explain quick paths in pcpu_[de]populate_chunk() Tejun Heo
2009-12-01  2:02       ` Cong Wang [this message]
2009-12-01  5:00         ` Tejun Heo
2009-12-01  5:09           ` Tejun Heo
2009-12-01  5:40             ` Cong Wang
2009-12-01  5:47               ` Tejun Heo
2009-12-01  6:35                 ` Cong Wang
2009-12-01  6:59                   ` Tejun Heo
2009-12-01  7:13                     ` [PATCH] percpu: refactor the code " Cong Wang
2009-12-01 14:31                       ` 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=4B147918.3000503@redhat.com \
    --to=amwang@redhat.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=cl@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=tj@kernel.org \
    /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.