From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: [PATCH] poll: Avoid extra wakeups in select/poll Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 15:07:06 +0200 Message-ID: <20090429130706.GA22449@elte.hu> References: <49F3308B.1030507@cosmosbay.com> <20090426.020411.157511269.davem@davemloft.net> <49F43B8F.2050907@cosmosbay.com> <87ab60rh8t.fsf@basil.nowhere.org> <49F71B63.8010503@cosmosbay.com> <20090429091637.GA29874@elte.hu> <49F81FB9.50504@cosmosbay.com> <20090429102734.GC2373@elte.hu> <49F84833.5000908@cosmosbay.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: linux kernel , Andi Kleen , David Miller , cl@linux.com, jesse.brandeburg@intel.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, haoki@redhat.com, mchan@broadcom.com, davidel@xmailserver.org To: Eric Dumazet Return-path: Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:44440 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759063AbZD2NHp (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Apr 2009 09:07:45 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <49F84833.5000908@cosmosbay.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: * Eric Dumazet wrote: > > should be inline perhaps? > > Well, I thought current practice was not using inline for such > trivial functions, as gcc already inlines them anyway. ok. how about: > > [ I'd still suggest to factor out the guts of do_select() as > > its nesting is excessive that hurts its reviewability quite a > > bit - but now your patch does not make the situation any > > worse. ] We tend to shop for drive-by cleanups in visibly ugly code whenever someone wants to touch that code. Could go into a separate patch. Ingo