[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090112195438.GA4538@linux-os.sc.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 11:54:38 -0800
From: "Pallipadi, Venkatesh" <venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: "Pallipadi, Venkatesh" <venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com>,
Torsten Kaiser <just.for.lkml@...glemail.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [git pull] x86 fixes
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 11:47:13AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 12 Jan 2009, Pallipadi, Venkatesh wrote:
> > + if (strict_prot ||
> > + (want_flags == _PAGE_CACHE_UC_MINUS &&
> > + flags == _PAGE_CACHE_WB) ||
> > + (want_flags == _PAGE_CACHE_WC &&
> > + flags == _PAGE_CACHE_WB)) {
>
> Please don't write code like this.
>
> Do it as an inline function that returns true/false and has comments on
> what the hell is going on.
>
> If a conditional doesn't fit on one line, it should generally be
> abstracted away into a readable function where the name explains what it
> does conceptually.
>
Yes. The actual patch that is lined up in tip fixes indeed has this as a
macro sharing this code with 2 callers and comment about this
(is_new_memtype_allowed()). I wanted to keep the changes smaller in this
test patch, which is just to root cause this particular crash and ended
up with above code.
Thanks,
Venki
--
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