linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/7] sched: refactor try_to_wake

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	Wed, 02 Dec 2009 10:05:33 +0100
From:	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:	tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...e.hu, avi@...hat.com,
	peterz@...radead.org, rusty@...tcorp.com.au,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/7] sched: refactor try_to_wake_up()

On Wed, 2009-12-02 at 12:56 +0900, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Factor ttwu_activate() and ttwu_woken_up() out of try_to_wake_up().

Nit: ttwu_woken_up() sounds decidedly strange to my ear. Perhaps
ttwu_post_activation()?

As a $.02 comment, factoring here doesn't look nice, reader scrolls
around whereas he currently sees all the why/wherefore at a glance.
Needing to pass three booleans for stats also looks bad.  I think it
would _look_ better with the thing just duplicated/stripped down and
called what it is, sched_notifier_wakeup() or such.

Which leaves growth in it's wake though...

> +/**
>   * try_to_wake_up - wake up a thread
>   * @p: the to-be-woken-up thread

Nit: thread to be awakened sounds better.

	-Mike

--
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/