linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 11/18] swim: dequeue in-flight request

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4A0F1A55.8080701@ru.mvista.com>
Date:	Sat, 16 May 2009 23:56:05 +0400
From:	Sergei Shtylyov <sshtylyov@...mvista.com>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-ide@...r.kernel.org, rusty@...tcorp.com.au,
	James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com, mike.miller@...com,
	donari75@...il.com, paul.clements@...eleye.com, tim@...erelk.net,
	Geert.Uytterhoeven@...ycom.com, davem@...emloft.net,
	Laurent@...vier.info, jgarzik@...ox.com, jeremy@...source.com,
	grant.likely@...retlab.ca, adrian@...en.demon.co.uk,
	sfr@...b.auug.org.au, bzolnier@...il.com, petkovbb@...glemail.com,
	oakad@...oo.com, drzeus@...eus.cx, dwmw2@...radead.org,
	Markus.Lidel@...dowconnect.com, wein@...ibm.com,
	schwidefsky@...ibm.com, zaitcev@...hat.com,
	fujita.tomonori@....ntt.co.jp, axboe@...nel.dk
Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/18] swim: dequeue in-flight request

Hello.

Tejun Heo wrote:

>>   And without duplication:
>>     
>
> Similar response as the if/else one on the other thread.  Is it really
> any significantly better?  The 'duplication' here is basically one
> liner

   Not true, it's 3-liner. I wouldn't bother with one liner.

> after the peek/fetch change

   The peek/fetch code itself is duplicated. :-/

> and when the duplication is minimal,
> I usually find it clearer to put the loop condition at the while
> clause itself.

   No problem, we could just keep an old form of *while* loop.

> If you think it's significantly better,

   I do hink it avoids duplicating peek/fetch code.

> please go ahead and submit the patch but to me the change you're proposing is
> basically cosmetic and not even a clearly better one at that.
>   

   Should probably look at the resulting assembly to see how much it's 
differrent.

> Thanks.

WBR, Sergei


--
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/