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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 20:11:19 +0200 From: Corrado Zoccolo <czoccolo@...il.com> To: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com> Cc: Linux-Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/5] cfq-iosched: adapt slice to number of processes doing I/O On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 3:17 PM, Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com> wrote: > I do, personally it doesn't read anywhere near as naturally as a simple > 'if'. And when you start doing x = a ? b : c ? d : e; I almost reach for > the nearest expletive :-) In this case, formatting it on multiple lines could help: a ? b : c ? d : e; > > And adding a local scope with {} and having 3-4 broken lines of > multiplications, divisions (etc) inside max()/min() calls doesn't add to > the readability in any positive way... Ok, but min and max hide a lot of complexity for the corner cases. Espressing those with plain ifs would be really a tough task. > >> To me, it seems a good way to achieve a different readability goal, >> i.e. define the value of a variable in a single place, instead of >> scattering it around on multiple lines. > > I prefer putting it elsewhere instead. So instead of doing: > > foo_type bar = x(y) == BAZ ? a : b; > > you have > > get_foo_type(y) > { > if (x(y) == BAZ) > return a; > > return b; > } > > foo_type bar = get_foo_type(y); > > which is a lot more readable to me. Especially since you have to do the > get_foo_type() operation in a lot of places. Sounds good. I'll do in this way in next version. > >> It's not important for the patches per se, but I found odd (and it >> caused me some headache while debugging) that in cfq_add_rq_rb the >> fifo was still empty. >> In the new form, the rq will be complete when added, while in the >> previous, it still had some empty fields. > > Then keep it like it is, or do it as a separate patch. When you include > it in a functionally changing patch like this, I'm assuming there must > be a reason for that. And when it seems like there isn't, you wonder > what is up. I'm moving it in the preparation patch, that is not changing functionality. There,. it makes more sense. I'm going to send the revised series soon. Corrado > > -- > Jens Axboe > > -- __________________________________________________________________________ dott. Corrado Zoccolo mailto:czoccolo@...il.com PhD - Department of Computer Science - University of Pisa, Italy -------------------------------------------------------------------------- The self-confidence of a warrior is not the self-confidence of the average man. The average man seeks certainty in the eyes of the onlooker and calls that self-confidence. The warrior seeks impeccability in his own eyes and calls that humbleness. Tales of Power - C. Castaneda -- 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