Re: [PATCH 3/3] sched: Use clamp() and clamp_val() to make it more readable.

[Dongsheng Yang <yangds.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>]

On 03/19/2014 10:16 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Mar 2014 18:26:44 +0800
> Dongsheng Yang <yangds.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote:
>
>> As Kees suggested, I use clamp() function to replace the if and
>> else branch, making it more readable and modular.
>>
>> Suggested-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
>> Signed-off-by: Dongsheng Yang <yangds.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
>> ---
>>   kernel/sched/core.c | 11 ++---------
>>   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
>> index 259ab85..85f4231 100644
>> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
>> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
>> @@ -3068,17 +3068,10 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE1(nice, int, increment)
>>   	 * We don't have to worry. Conceptually one call occurs first
>>   	 * and we have a single winner.
>>   	 */
>> -	if (increment < -NICE_WIDTH)
>> -		increment = -NICE_WIDTH;
>> -	if (increment > NICE_WIDTH)
>> -		increment = NICE_WIDTH;
>> -
> Patch 2 and 3 need to be merged into a single patch.

Okey, I will squash them into one.

Thanx
>
> -- Steve
>
>> +	increment = clamp(increment, -NICE_WIDTH, NICE_WIDTH);
>>   	nice = task_nice(current) + increment;
>> -	if (nice < MIN_NICE)
>> -		nice = MIN_NICE;
>> -	if (nice > MAX_NICE)
>> -		nice = MAX_NICE;
>>   
>> +	nice = clamp_val(nice, MIN_NICE, MAX_NICE);
>>   	if (increment < 0 && !can_nice(current, nice))
>>   		return -EPERM;
>>   
>