All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Pranith Kumar <bobby.prani@gmail.com>
To: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>, Pranith Kumar <pranith@gatech.edu>
Cc: peterz@infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	xfs@oss.sgi.com, mingo@redhat.com, davidlohr@hp.com,
	tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/1] cleanup: use bool as return type for rwsem_is_locked
Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2014 20:59:50 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <53926406.4020200@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140607001819.GE4453@dastard>

On 06/06/2014 08:18 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 06, 2014 at 02:11:18PM -0400, Pranith Kumar wrote:
>> On 06/06/2014 01:53 PM, Pranith Kumar wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 3:35 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Now in general, I don't particularly like such superfluous changes, so
>>>> unless you can show that GCC actually generates better code, I'd prefer
>>>> to keep things as they are.
>>>
>>> Fixed and checked the assembly. It saves us 2 bytes of code, not much. I am not sure if that is worth it :(
>>>
>>> use bool as the return type for rwsem_is_locked() instead of int
>>>

> 
> If you are going to change the return type to bool, then you should
> also remove the manual "!!" conversions to a boolean return and let
> the compiler do it in the most optimal way.
> 
 
Agreed, please find patch below:

change return type to bool to follow rwsem_is_locked()

Signed-off-by: Pranith Kumar <bobby.prani@gmail.com>
---
 fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c | 8 ++++----
 fs/xfs/xfs_inode.h | 2 +-
 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c
index a6115fe..c02ac49 100644
--- a/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c
+++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c
@@ -285,25 +285,25 @@ xfs_ilock_demote(
 }
 
 #if defined(DEBUG) || defined(XFS_WARN)
-int
+bool
 xfs_isilocked(
 	xfs_inode_t		*ip,
 	uint			lock_flags)
 {
 	if (lock_flags & (XFS_ILOCK_EXCL|XFS_ILOCK_SHARED)) {
 		if (!(lock_flags & XFS_ILOCK_SHARED))
-			return !!ip->i_lock.mr_writer;
+			return !(ip->i_lock.mr_writer == 0);
 		return rwsem_is_locked(&ip->i_lock.mr_lock);
 	}
 
 	if (lock_flags & (XFS_IOLOCK_EXCL|XFS_IOLOCK_SHARED)) {
 		if (!(lock_flags & XFS_IOLOCK_SHARED))
-			return !!ip->i_iolock.mr_writer;
+			return !(ip->i_iolock.mr_writer == 0);
 		return rwsem_is_locked(&ip->i_iolock.mr_lock);
 	}
 
 	ASSERT(0);
-	return 0;
+	return false;
 }
 #endif
 
diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.h b/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.h
index f72bffa..efebed6 100644
--- a/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.h
+++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.h
@@ -346,7 +346,7 @@ void		xfs_ilock(xfs_inode_t *, uint);
 int		xfs_ilock_nowait(xfs_inode_t *, uint);
 void		xfs_iunlock(xfs_inode_t *, uint);
 void		xfs_ilock_demote(xfs_inode_t *, uint);
-int		xfs_isilocked(xfs_inode_t *, uint);
+bool		xfs_isilocked(xfs_inode_t *, uint);
 uint		xfs_ilock_data_map_shared(struct xfs_inode *);
 uint		xfs_ilock_attr_map_shared(struct xfs_inode *);
 int		xfs_ialloc(struct xfs_trans *, xfs_inode_t *, umode_t,
-- 
1.9.1

_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Pranith Kumar <bobby.prani@gmail.com>
To: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>, Pranith Kumar <pranith@gatech.edu>
Cc: peterz@infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com, davidlohr@hp.com, mingo@redhat.com,
	xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/1] cleanup: use bool as return type for rwsem_is_locked
Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2014 20:59:50 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <53926406.4020200@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140607001819.GE4453@dastard>

On 06/06/2014 08:18 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 06, 2014 at 02:11:18PM -0400, Pranith Kumar wrote:
>> On 06/06/2014 01:53 PM, Pranith Kumar wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 3:35 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Now in general, I don't particularly like such superfluous changes, so
>>>> unless you can show that GCC actually generates better code, I'd prefer
>>>> to keep things as they are.
>>>
>>> Fixed and checked the assembly. It saves us 2 bytes of code, not much. I am not sure if that is worth it :(
>>>
>>> use bool as the return type for rwsem_is_locked() instead of int
>>>

> 
> If you are going to change the return type to bool, then you should
> also remove the manual "!!" conversions to a boolean return and let
> the compiler do it in the most optimal way.
> 
 
Agreed, please find patch below:

change return type to bool to follow rwsem_is_locked()

Signed-off-by: Pranith Kumar <bobby.prani@gmail.com>
---
 fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c | 8 ++++----
 fs/xfs/xfs_inode.h | 2 +-
 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c
index a6115fe..c02ac49 100644
--- a/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c
+++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c
@@ -285,25 +285,25 @@ xfs_ilock_demote(
 }
 
 #if defined(DEBUG) || defined(XFS_WARN)
-int
+bool
 xfs_isilocked(
 	xfs_inode_t		*ip,
 	uint			lock_flags)
 {
 	if (lock_flags & (XFS_ILOCK_EXCL|XFS_ILOCK_SHARED)) {
 		if (!(lock_flags & XFS_ILOCK_SHARED))
-			return !!ip->i_lock.mr_writer;
+			return !(ip->i_lock.mr_writer == 0);
 		return rwsem_is_locked(&ip->i_lock.mr_lock);
 	}
 
 	if (lock_flags & (XFS_IOLOCK_EXCL|XFS_IOLOCK_SHARED)) {
 		if (!(lock_flags & XFS_IOLOCK_SHARED))
-			return !!ip->i_iolock.mr_writer;
+			return !(ip->i_iolock.mr_writer == 0);
 		return rwsem_is_locked(&ip->i_iolock.mr_lock);
 	}
 
 	ASSERT(0);
-	return 0;
+	return false;
 }
 #endif
 
diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.h b/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.h
index f72bffa..efebed6 100644
--- a/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.h
+++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.h
@@ -346,7 +346,7 @@ void		xfs_ilock(xfs_inode_t *, uint);
 int		xfs_ilock_nowait(xfs_inode_t *, uint);
 void		xfs_iunlock(xfs_inode_t *, uint);
 void		xfs_ilock_demote(xfs_inode_t *, uint);
-int		xfs_isilocked(xfs_inode_t *, uint);
+bool		xfs_isilocked(xfs_inode_t *, uint);
 uint		xfs_ilock_data_map_shared(struct xfs_inode *);
 uint		xfs_ilock_attr_map_shared(struct xfs_inode *);
 int		xfs_ialloc(struct xfs_trans *, xfs_inode_t *, umode_t,
-- 
1.9.1

  reply	other threads:[~2014-06-07  0:59 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-06-05 20:49 [RFC PATCH 1/1] cleanup: use bool as return type for rwsem_is_locked Pranith Kumar
2014-06-06  7:35 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-06-06 17:53 ` Pranith Kumar
2014-06-06 17:56   ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-06-06 18:02     ` Pranith Kumar
2014-06-06 18:41     ` Davidlohr Bueso
2014-06-06 18:52       ` Pranith Kumar
2014-06-06 18:11   ` Pranith Kumar
2014-06-06 18:11     ` Pranith Kumar
2014-06-07  0:18     ` Dave Chinner
2014-06-07  0:18       ` Dave Chinner
2014-06-07  0:59       ` Pranith Kumar [this message]
2014-06-07  0:59         ` Pranith Kumar
2014-06-07  1:41         ` Pranith Kumar
2014-06-07  1:41           ` Pranith Kumar
2014-06-07  2:39           ` Joe Perches
2014-06-07  2:39             ` Joe Perches
2014-06-07 23:44             ` Dave Chinner
2014-06-07 23:44               ` Dave Chinner
2014-06-08  2:57               ` Pranith Kumar
2014-06-08  2:57                 ` Pranith Kumar

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=53926406.4020200@gmail.com \
    --to=bobby.prani@gmail.com \
    --cc=david@fromorbit.com \
    --cc=davidlohr@hp.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=pranith@gatech.edu \
    --cc=tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=xfs@oss.sgi.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.