Re: + syscalls-x86-add-__nr_kcmp-syscall-v8.patch added to -mm tree

Oleg Nesterov
2012-02-16T19:11:35Z

On 02/16, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 06:40:47PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > On 02/16, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> > >
> > > -static void access_unlock(struct task_struct *task)
> > > +static void kcmp_unlock(struct mutex *m1, struct mutex *m2)
> > > {
> > > - mutex_unlock(&task->signal->cred_guard_mutex);
> > > + if (m2 > m1)
> > > + swap(m1, m2);
> >
> > Well, the order doesn't matter in case of _unlock, you can remove
> > this part. Not that it really hurts though, I won't argue.
>
> It drops some instructions so I think it worth removing

Yes.

> (still
> unlocking not in reverse order is something which always make
> me nervious ;)

Yes ;)

so let me repeat, I am not arguing. But IMHO every piece of code
should be understandable. Personally I do not mind at all, just
I _personally_ think this code _can_ confuse the reader, "damn why
we can't simply unlock in any order???".

If you add the "not really needed" comment above this swap - I agree.
If you simply remove this swap - I agree as well.

But. I won't argue if you prefer to keep this patch as is. You are the
author. If it looks better to _you_ - OK, this is correct (afaics).

Oleg.