From: Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com>
To: Li Zefan <lizf@cn.fujitsu.com>
Cc: seto.hidetoshi@jp.fujitsu.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
menage@google.com, peterz@infradead.org,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, laijs@cn.fujitsu.com
Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH] cpuset: fix wrong calculation of relax domain level
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 15:09:16 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080717150916.bf0ca765.pj@sgi.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <487F1B38.3050100@cn.fujitsu.com>
In looking at this, I notice something I should have questioned before.
The include/linux/sched.h code:
struct sched_domain_attr {
int relax_domain_level;
};
#define SD_ATTR_INIT (struct sched_domain_attr) { \
.relax_domain_level = -1, \
}
and the associated passing of relax_domain_level's embedded inside
a kmalloc'c struct sched_domain_attr 'dattr' seems like excessive
obfuscating apparatus to me. Unless someone has short term plans
to be adding some other attributes to this sched_domain_attr, I
suspect it would make more sense just to pass relax_domain_level's
as explicit lvalues, dropping all this attr stuff.
Adding unnecessary abstractions 'for future growth' is usually a
bad idea. It impedes current code understanding more than it aids
future code growth.
--
I won't rest till it's the best ...
Programmer, Linux Scalability
Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com> 1.940.382.4214
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-07-17 20:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-07-17 8:07 [RFC] [PATCH] cpuset: fix wrong calculation of relax domain level Li Zefan
2008-07-17 8:57 ` Hidetoshi Seto
2008-07-17 10:13 ` Li Zefan
2008-07-17 20:09 ` Paul Jackson [this message]
2008-07-17 20:28 ` Paul Jackson
2008-07-18 0:26 ` Hidetoshi Seto
2008-07-18 0:35 ` Paul Jackson
2008-07-18 2:36 ` Li Zefan
2008-07-18 2:43 ` Paul Jackson
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=20080717150916.bf0ca765.pj@sgi.com \
--to=pj@sgi.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=laijs@cn.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lizf@cn.fujitsu.com \
--cc=menage@google.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=seto.hidetoshi@jp.fujitsu.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox