[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20060901111004.GA8517@elte.hu>
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2006 13:10:04 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ux01.gwdg.de>
Cc: Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Russell Cattelan <cattelan@...hat.com>,
David Teigland <teigland@...hat.com>, hch@...radead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/16] GFS2: Core locking interface
* Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ux01.gwdg.de> wrote:
> I suppose so. If they were initialized statically, this function could
> possibly be dropped.
>
> >+typedef void lm_lockspace_t;
> >+typedef void lm_lock_t;
> >+typedef void lm_fsdata_t;
>
> Try to avoid typedefs for
> - simple types like these (int/void/etc.)
> - structures
yeah. If we dont want to expose a type externally, we forward declare
the structure, and pointers to it can then be used and passed around.
That's also more type-safe (and obviously more readable) than a typedef
to void.
> >+ error = glock_wait_internal(gh);
> >+ if (error == GLR_CANCELED) {
> >+ msleep(100);
>
> msleep is a busy-waiter IIRC. Really want to do that - what about some
> schedulling?
no. mdelay() is the busy-waiter - msleep() is scheduling based.
> >+ borked = 1;
> >+ serious = error;
>
> This got me a laugh :)
me too - the hidden joys of code review :-)
Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists