linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] percpu: explain quick paths in pcpu_[de]populate

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: <4B14ADE0.3020007@kernel.org>
Date:	Tue, 01 Dec 2009 14:47:12 +0900
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Cong Wang <amwang@...hat.com>
CC:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] percpu: explain quick paths in pcpu_[de]populate_chunk()

Hello,

On 12/01/2009 02:40 PM, Cong Wang wrote:
>> So, I don't know.  The first iteration only loop looks a bit unusual
>> for sure but it isn't something conceptually convoluted.
> 
> Now this seems to be better. So with this change, we can do:
> 
> pcpu_first_pop_region(chunk, rs, re, start, end);
> if (rs < re && ...)
>    return;
> 
> Right?

Yeap, but is that any better?  Passing lvalue loop parameters to loop
constructs is customary.  For almost all other cases, it's not, so

 pcpu_first_pop_region(chunk, &rs, &re, start, end)

would be better but then we have two similar looking interfaces which
take different types of parameters.  Also, you probably can drop rs <
re test there but for me it just seems easier to simply check the
first iteration.  If you think it's something worth changing and it
looks better afterwards, please send a patch.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
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/