From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755642AbZEPOjd (ORCPT ); Sat, 16 May 2009 10:39:33 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755192AbZEPOjV (ORCPT ); Sat, 16 May 2009 10:39:21 -0400 Received: from hera.kernel.org ([140.211.167.34]:46361 "EHLO hera.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752610AbZEPOjT (ORCPT ); Sat, 16 May 2009 10:39:19 -0400 Message-ID: <4A0ECF8E.6000209@kernel.org> Date: Sat, 16 May 2009 23:37:02 +0900 From: Tejun Heo User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (X11/20081227) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Sergei Shtylyov CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, rusty@rustcorp.com.au, James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com, mike.miller@hp.com, donari75@gmail.com, paul.clements@steeleye.com, tim@cyberelk.net, Geert.Uytterhoeven@sonycom.com, davem@davemloft.net, Laurent@lvivier.info, jgarzik@pobox.com, jeremy@xensource.com, grant.likely@secretlab.ca, adrian@mcmen.demon.co.uk, sfr@canb.auug.org.au, bzolnier@gmail.com, petkovbb@googlemail.com, oakad@yahoo.com, drzeus@drzeus.cx, dwmw2@infradead.org, Markus.Lidel@shadowconnect.com, wein@de.ibm.com, schwidefsky@de.ibm.com, zaitcev@redhat.com, fujita.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp, axboe@kernel.dk Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/18] swim: dequeue in-flight request References: <1241751256-17435-1-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org> <1241751256-17435-12-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org> <4A0EC2AD.20704@ru.mvista.com> In-Reply-To: <4A0EC2AD.20704@ru.mvista.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (hera.kernel.org [127.0.0.1]); Sat, 16 May 2009 14:37:08 +0000 (UTC) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Sergei Shtylyov wrote: > And without duplication: Similar response as the if/else one on the other thread. Is it really any significantly better? The 'duplication' here is basically one liner after the peek/fetch change and when the duplication is minimal, I usually find it clearer to put the loop condition at the while clause itself. If you think it's significantly better, please go ahead and submit the patch but to me the change you're proposing is basically cosmetic and not even a clearly better one at that. Thanks. -- tejun