[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4BB8461B.3060502@dcl.info.waseda.ac.jp>
Date: Sun, 04 Apr 2010 16:56:11 +0900
From: Hitoshi Mitake <mitake@....info.waseda.ac.jp>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Jason Baron <jbaron@...hat.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, h.mitake@...il.com,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 00/11] lock monitor: Separate features related to
lock
On 03/24/10 00:32, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-03-20 at 17:23 +0900, Hitoshi Mitake wrote:
>> In lockdep, held_locks of task_struct are accessed this arithmetical way
>> prev = curr->held_locks + i;
>> Of course this is valid way, but I feel it is more simple and
natural way
>> prev = curr->held_locks[i];
>>
>
> The latter is a type mis-match, an equivalent expression would be:
> &curr->held_locks[i];
>
Yeah, sorry.
And is there reason that the statement is not
&curr->held_locks[i];
but
prev = curr->held_locks + i;
?
Of course, curr->held_locks + i style statement causes no problem.
But I had a little interest in the selection of style.
Do you know the reason?
Thanks,
Hitoshi
--
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