From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: Cong Wang <amwang@redhat.com>
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 14:47:12 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4B14ADE0.3020007@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4B14AC35.3020700@redhat.com>
Hello,
On 12/01/2009 02:40 PM, Cong Wang wrote:
>> So, I don't know. The first iteration only loop looks a bit unusual
>> for sure but it isn't something conceptually convoluted.
>
> Now this seems to be better. So with this change, we can do:
>
> pcpu_first_pop_region(chunk, rs, re, start, end);
> if (rs < re && ...)
> return;
>
> Right?
Yeap, but is that any better? Passing lvalue loop parameters to loop
constructs is customary. For almost all other cases, it's not, so
pcpu_first_pop_region(chunk, &rs, &re, start, end)
would be better but then we have two similar looking interfaces which
take different types of parameters. Also, you probably can drop rs <
re test there but for me it just seems easier to simply check the
first iteration. If you think it's something worth changing and it
looks better afterwards, please send a patch.
Thanks.
--
tejun
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-12-01 5:47 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
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 [this message]
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=4B14ADE0.3020007@kernel.org \
--to=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=amwang@redhat.com \
--cc=cl@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.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.