Re: OOPS: 2.6.16-rc6 cpufreq_conservative

[Willy Tarreau <willy@w.ods.org>]

On Sun, Mar 19, 2006 at 11:33:17AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
 
> Of course, I shouldn't say "works", since it is still totally untested. It 
> _looks_ good, and that statement expression usage is just _so_ ugly it's 
> cute.
>
> 		Linus

At least, you could have moved the macro closer to where it's used.
It's very uncommon to break a statement within an if condition, and
it's not expected that the macro you're calling does a break under
you. It took me several minutes to understand precisely how this
works. Now it seems trivial, but I guess that at 3am I would have
gone to bed instead.

One first enhancement would be to make it easier to understand
by putting it closer to its user :

#elif NR_CPUS > 1
#define check_for_each_cpu(cpu, mask) \
	({ unsigned long __bits = (mask).bits[0] >> (cpu); if (!__bits) break; __bits & 1; })

#define for_each_cpu_mask(cpu, mask)		\
	for ((cpu) = 0; (cpu) < NR_CPUS; (cpu)++) \
		if (!check_for_each_cpu(cpu, mask))	\
			continue;		\
		else

Now, does removing the macro completely change the output code ?
I think that if something written like this produces the same
code, it would be easier to read :

#define for_each_cpu_mask(cpu, mask)			\
	for ((cpu) = 0; (cpu) < NR_CPUS; (cpu)++) {	\
		unsigned long __bits = (mask).bits[0] >> (cpu); \
		if (!__bits)				\
			break;				\
		if (!__bits & 1)			\
			continue;			\
		else

Regards,
Willy