On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 11:30 AM, Paul E. McKenney <paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 11:11:45AM -0400, Pranith Kumar wrote: >> On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 10:23 AM, Paul E. McKenney >> <paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: >> > On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 10:12:54AM -0400, Pranith Kumar wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 9:50 AM, Paul E. McKenney >> >> <paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: >> >> > On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 08:59:06AM -0400, Pranith Kumar wrote: >> >> >> On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 8:21 AM, Paul E. McKenney >> >> >> <paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: >> >> >> > On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 01:09:46AM -0400, Pranith Kumar wrote: >> >> >> >> There are two checks for an online CPU if two if() conditions. This >> >> >> >> commit >> >> >> >> simplies this by replacing it with only one check for the online >> >> >> >> CPU. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Signed-off-by: Pranith Kumar <bobby.pr...@gmail.com> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > I admit that it is very early in the morning my time, but I don't see >> >> >> > this change as preserving the semantics in all cases. Please recheck >> >> >> > your changes to the second check. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Thanx, Paul >> >> >> >> >> >> I guess you must be thrown off by the complementary checks, the first >> >> >> check is for cpu_online() and second is for cpu_is_offline(). :) >> >> >> >> >> >> Previously, if a cpu is offline, the first condition is false and the >> >> >> second condition is true, so we return from the second if() condition. >> >> >> The same semantics are being preserved. >> >> > >> >> > Fair enough! >> >> > >> >> > Nevertheless, I am not seeing this as a simplification. >> >> >> >> I am not sure what you mean here, do you mean that both the checks are >> >> actually required? >> > >> > I mean that the current compound tests each mean something. Pulling out >> > the offline test adds lines of code and obscures that meaning. This means >> > that it is easier (for me, anyway) to see why the current code is correct >> > than it is to see why your suggested change is correct. >> > >> >> That is a valid point. I did not mean to reduce readability of the >> code. Just trying to avoid the overhead of smp_processor_id(). >> >> Not sure if you would prefer this, but how about the following? > > If you change the "awake" to something like "am_online", I could get > behind this one. >
OK! I will submit that in the next series(with the zalloc check). -- Pranith -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
