From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1753510Ab1IEMuq (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Mon, 5 Sep 2011 08:50:46 -0400
Received: from mga03.intel.com ([143.182.124.21]:48130 "EHLO mga03.intel.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1752589Ab1IEMum (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 5 Sep 2011 08:50:42 -0400
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.68,333,1312182000"; 
   d="scan'208";a="45685057"
Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2011 20:50:38 +0800
From: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
To: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Cc: Jens Axboe <jaxboe@fusionio.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm: Cleanup clearing of BDI_pending bit in
 bdi_forker_thread()
Message-ID: <20110905125038.GA1349@localhost>
References: <1315004059-9844-1-git-send-email-jack@suse.cz>
 <1315004059-9844-2-git-send-email-jack@suse.cz>
 <20110904030442.GA16361@localhost>
 <20110904041305.GA25981@localhost>
 <20110905100612.GB5466@quack.suse.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20110905100612.GB5466@quack.suse.cz>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Mon, Sep 05, 2011 at 06:06:12PM +0800, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Sun 04-09-11 12:13:05, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 04, 2011 at 11:04:42AM +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> > > On Sat, Sep 03, 2011 at 06:54:18AM +0800, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > > bdi_forker_thread() clears BDI_pending bit at the end of the main loop.
> > > > However clearing of this bit must not be done in some cases which is handled by
> > > > calling 'continue' from switch statement. That's kind of unusual construct and
> > > > without a good reason so change the function into more intuitive code flow.
> > > > 
> > > > CC: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
> > > > CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
> > > 
> > > It's pure code refactor.
> > > 
> > > Reviewed-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
> > 
> > But I do suspect it will slightly increase the code size.
> > What do you think?
>   I haven't checked, maybe it will if the compiler is not clever enough to
> merge two occurences of the function which is going to be inlined. But the
> overhead will be really small and the code is not really performance critical
> so I think clarity has priority.

I have no problem then. It's not a big matter.

Thanks,
Fengguang