From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: Cong Wang <amwang@redhat.com>
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 14:47:12 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4B14ADE0.3020007@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4B14AC35.3020700@redhat.com>
Hello,
On 12/01/2009 02:40 PM, Cong Wang wrote:
>> So, I don't know. The first iteration only loop looks a bit unusual
>> for sure but it isn't something conceptually convoluted.
>
> Now this seems to be better. So with this change, we can do:
>
> pcpu_first_pop_region(chunk, rs, re, start, end);
> if (rs < re && ...)
> return;
>
> Right?
Yeap, but is that any better? Passing lvalue loop parameters to loop
constructs is customary. For almost all other cases, it's not, so
pcpu_first_pop_region(chunk, &rs, &re, start, end)
would be better but then we have two similar looking interfaces which
take different types of parameters. Also, you probably can drop rs <
re test there but for me it just seems easier to simply check the
first iteration. If you think it's something worth changing and it
looks better afterwards, please send a patch.
Thanks.
--
tejun
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-12-01 5:47 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
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 [this message]
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=4B14ADE0.3020007@kernel.org \
--to=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=amwang@redhat.com \
--cc=cl@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.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