public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Cong Wang <amwang@redhat.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] percpu: explain quick paths in pcpu_[de]populate_chunk()
Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2009 10:02:00 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4B147918.3000503@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4B145CE9.1060608@kernel.org>

Tejun Heo wrote:
> pcpu_[de]populate_chunk() check whether there's actually any work to
> do at the beginning and exit early if not.  This checking is done by
> seeing whether the first iteration of pcpu_for_each_[un]pop_region()
> covers the whole requested region.  The resulting code is a bit
> unusual in that it's loop-like but never loops which apparently
> confuses people.  Add comments to explain it.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
> Reported-by: Amerigo Wang <amwang@redhat.com>
> Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux-foundation.org>
> ---
> Added to percpu#for-next.  This should be clear enough, right?
> 

Nope, comments can never fix bad code.

Since these two break statements are intentional, why not use if?
Logically, the following two are equalent.

for(a1; a2; a3){
     if (a4)
        return;
     break;
}


a1;
if (a2) {
    if (a4)
        return;
}


And the latter is much more readable than the former.

  reply	other threads:[~2009-12-01  1:59 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2009-11-30  9:12 [Patch] percpu: remove two suspicious break statements Amerigo Wang
2009-11-30 11:09 ` Tejun Heo
2009-11-30 19:01   ` Christoph Lameter
2009-12-01  0:01     ` [PATCH] percpu: explain quick paths in pcpu_[de]populate_chunk() Tejun Heo
2009-12-01  2:02       ` Cong Wang [this message]
2009-12-01  5:00         ` Tejun Heo
2009-12-01  5:09           ` Tejun Heo
2009-12-01  5:40             ` Cong Wang
2009-12-01  5:47               ` Tejun Heo
2009-12-01  6:35                 ` Cong Wang
2009-12-01  6:59                   ` Tejun Heo
2009-12-01  7:13                     ` [PATCH] percpu: refactor the code " Cong Wang
2009-12-01 14:31                       ` Tejun Heo

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=4B147918.3000503@redhat.com \
    --to=amwang@redhat.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=cl@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=tj@kernel.org \
    /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