linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 11/16] sched: add latency tracing for -deadline tasks.

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:	Mon, 16 Apr 2012 15:56:20 -0400
From:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:	Daniel Vacek <neelx.g@...il.com>
Cc:	Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...il.com>, peterz@...radead.org,
	tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, cfriesen@...tel.com,
	oleg@...hat.com, fweisbec@...il.com, darren@...art.com,
	johan.eker@...csson.com, p.faure@...tech.ch,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, claudio@...dence.eu.com,
	raistlin@...ux.it
Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/16] sched: add latency tracing for -deadline tasks.

On Mon, 2012-04-16 at 17:51 +0200, Daniel Vacek wrote:

> sorry for the question, I'm obviously missing something here but what
> is the logic behind this rewrite? In both cases my gcc generates the
> same code for me.

Yeah, I noticed that later. I thought it was doing something slightly
different, but after a good nights rest, and re-reading what I wrote in
the morning, it was obviously the same functionality.

But that said. The final result is much easier to read. And as you
stated, it doesn't make a difference in the final outcome, it ended up
being a good fix (more readable code means less bugs).

-- Steve


--
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/