[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080722102354.GA1068@tv-sign.ru>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 14:23:54 +0400
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
To: Akinobu Mita <akinobu.mita@...il.com>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: + workqueue-proper-error-unwinding-in-cpu-hotplug-error-path.patch added to -mm tree
On 07/22, Akinobu Mita wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 01:16:36PM +0400, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> > Can't we simplify the fix? I don't like the fact that the CPU_UP_CANCELED
> > logic is duplicated.
> >
> > What do you think about the patch below?
>
> Yes, it is no duplication. But the goto usage in this patch looks bit
> tricky to me.
Well, the kernel is full of "goto again" / "goto retry". Not that I
claim this patch improves the readability ;)
But the duplication is really bad, imho.
> Maybe it is better to factor out the list_for_each() block.
Not sure I understand... do you mean add another function which
starts with list_for_each_entry ? This is not necessary, instead
of goto we can just do
workqueue_cpu_callback(CPU_UP_CANCELED);
return NOTIFY_BAD;
, in that case the patch will be one-liner.
Akinobu, Andrew, I'd suggest to drop
workqueue-proper-error-unwinding-in-cpu-hotplug-error-path.patch
, I'll send the new patch. If nothing else, it is simpler.
Oleg.
--
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