[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4B16388F.90707@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2009 18:51:11 +0900
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
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()
Hello,
On 12/02/2009 06:05 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> 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()?
Sure, I can rename it.
> 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.
The three bools aren't the prettiest thing in the world but I couldn't
prevent gcc from re-evaluating expressions without those.
> I think it would _look_ better with the thing just
> duplicated/stripped down and called what it is,
> sched_notifier_wakeup() or such.
Sorry, I'm not following. Can you elaborate a bit?
> 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.
Will update.
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists