From: SF Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>
To: shuah@kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
Thomas Renninger <trenn@suse.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org,
Shuah Khan <shuahkh@osg.samsung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpupower: Combine two condition checks into one statement in get_cpu_topology()
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 21:37:25 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <a131b1b8-739f-67d6-3cf4-b9d87f4e7c20@users.sourceforge.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <372aa4f8-7e97-ee83-1078-6f80e28ffdf0@kernel.org>
>> @@ -140,18 +140,12 @@ int get_cpu_topology(struct cpupower_topology *cpu_top)
>> for (cpu = 0; cpu < cpus; cpu++) {
>> cpu_top->core_info[cpu].cpu = cpu;
>> cpu_top->core_info[cpu].is_online = cpupower_is_cpu_online(cpu);
>> - if(sysfs_topology_read_file(
>> - cpu,
>> - "physical_package_id",
>> - &(cpu_top->core_info[cpu].pkg)) < 0) {
>> - cpu_top->core_info[cpu].pkg = -1;
>> - cpu_top->core_info[cpu].core = -1;
>> - continue;
>> - }
>> - if(sysfs_topology_read_file(
>> - cpu,
>> - "core_id",
>> - &(cpu_top->core_info[cpu].core)) < 0) {
>> + if (sysfs_topology_read_file(cpu, "physical_package_id",
>> + &(cpu_top->core_info[cpu].pkg))
>> + < 0 ||
>> + sysfs_topology_read_file(cpu, "core_id",
>> + &(cpu_top->core_info[cpu].core))
>> + < 0) {
>
> This change takes the easily readable code into hard to read code,
I got other views around code readability for the shown software
design direction.
> even though it removes the duplicate code in the conditional.
Would you like to reduce a bit of duplicate code here?
> Please find a better way to make it not so hard to read.
Which source code layout would you find more appropriate then
in this use case?
Regards,
Markus
prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-11-21 20:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-11-20 18:19 [PATCH] cpupower: Combine two condition checks into one statement in get_cpu_topology() SF Markus Elfring
2017-11-21 19:47 ` Shuah Khan
2017-11-21 20:37 ` SF Markus Elfring [this message]
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=a131b1b8-739f-67d6-3cf4-b9d87f4e7c20@users.sourceforge.net \
--to=elfring@users.sourceforge.net \
--cc=kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=shuah@kernel.org \
--cc=shuahkh@osg.samsung.com \
--cc=trenn@suse.com \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).