Re: [PATCH v2] credit: generalize __vcpu_has_soft_affinity()

[George Dunlap <george.dunlap@eu.citrix.com>]

On 03/06/2015 01:31 PM, Dario Faggioli wrote:
> On Fri, 2015-03-06 at 11:38 +0000, George Dunlap wrote:
>> On 03/06/2015 11:12 AM, Dario Faggioli wrote:
> 
>>> ---
>>> Hard affinity balancing is always necessary and must never be skipped.
>>> Soft affinity balancing is only useful if it, potentially, makes a
>>> difference.
>>>
>>> In more details, there is no point checking soft affinity if:
>>> * there is no online pCPU in the domain's cpupool that is not in the
>>>   soft affinity mask
>>> * there is no pCPU in the hard affinity mask that is not in the soft
>>>   affinity mask
>>> * there is no overlapping between the soft affinity mask and the mask
>>>   being considered (which, in most cases, is the hard affinity mask)
>>> ---
>>
>> I think what you've said here is almost exactly the same thing as what I
>> said, except using different words. (i.e., "X not a subset of Y" means
>> "there are X which are not in Y")
>>
> Well, of course it is! I mean, it wouldn't have, if you comment were
> wrong, which it wasn't. :-)
> 
> It's also exactly my point. In fact, in this case, adding something like
> what you're suggesting to the comment seems to me to be aimed at making
> the reader able to understand the code faster, isn't it? If yes, then
> the words "subset" is already used in the code, and suggesting to use
> different words is the entire point I'm trying to make! :-)

Well when you said "high level", I thought you meant explaining it in a
different way or from a different perspective, as opposed to using
non-Latin-based words. :-)

 -George