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

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

Date:	Wed, 02 Dec 2009 12:01:19 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...e.hu,
	avi@...hat.com, 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 19:14 +0900, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On 12/02/2009 07:10 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> >>> 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?
> > 
> > I mean copying ttwu, stripping out locking etc, and renaming the result
> > would look better.  No functional difference though, and binary growth
> > would be left in the wake of such a duplication.
> 
> Ah... okay.  Well, that was the first approach (with some missing
> parts).  Peter wasn't particularly happy with code duplication and
> suggested refactoring ttwu and reuse common parts.

Right, esp since it missed some parts.

I haven't yet had time to look at this patch, but yeah, sharing code
seems like a good idea since its tricky and fragile code.



--
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/