[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2767.1274270682@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 13:04:42 +0100
From: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To: Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>
Cc: dhowells@...hat.com,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Mike Waychison <mikew@...gle.com>,
Suleiman Souhlal <suleiman@...gle.com>,
Ying Han <yinghan@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/10] rwsem: fully separate code pathes to wake writers vs readers
Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com> wrote:
> + readers_only:
> + if (!downgrading) {
> +
There's an unnecessary blank line here.
> + /* if we came through an up_xxxx() call, we only only wake
> + * someone up if we can transition the active part of the
> + * count from 0 -> 1
> + */
> + try_again_read:
I hate code that jumps into braced blocks with goto. Would it be possible for
you to do:
readers_only:
if (downgrading)
goto wake_readers;
...
wake_readers:
/* Grant an infinite number of read locks to the readers at the front
...
instead, please?
Also, since the labels 'undo' and 'try_again' are now specific to the writer
path, can you label them 'undo_write' and 'try_again_write' just to make it
obvious?
Other than that, no particular objections to this patch.
David
--
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