linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 04/21] workqueue: swap the two branches in pwq_adjust_max

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, 20 Mar 2013 10:39:21 -0700
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/21] workqueue: swap the two branches in
 pwq_adjust_max_active() to get better readability

On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 03:28:04AM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> "if (!freezable || !(pwq->pool->flags & POOL_FREEZING))" is hard to read.
> 
> Swap the two branches. it becomes
> "if (freezable && (pwq->pool->flags & POOL_FREEZING))", it is better.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>
> ---
>  kernel/workqueue.c |    6 +++---
>  1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/workqueue.c b/kernel/workqueue.c
> index e1b31fc..8c882ae 100644
> --- a/kernel/workqueue.c
> +++ b/kernel/workqueue.c
> @@ -3592,14 +3592,14 @@ static void pwq_adjust_max_active(struct pool_workqueue *pwq)
>  
>  	spin_lock(&pwq->pool->lock);
>  
> -	if (!freezable || !(pwq->pool->flags & POOL_FREEZING)) {
> +	if (freezable && (pwq->pool->flags & POOL_FREEZING)) {
> +		pwq->max_active = 0;
> +	} else {
>  		pwq->max_active = wq->saved_max_active;
>  
>  		while (!list_empty(&pwq->delayed_works) &&
>  		       pwq->nr_active < pwq->max_active)
>  			pwq_activate_first_delayed(pwq);
> -	} else {
> -		pwq->max_active = 0;

Well, I have tendency to put what I think is the "main" branch above
(which also is what compiler assumes to be the hotter path too without
other input, not that it matters here), but yeah, maybe swapping them
is prettier.  Does this even matter?

Trying the patch.... hmm.... I don't know.  It looks weirder that way.
Maybe we can do the following if !A || !B bothers you?

	if (!(freezable && (pwq->pool->flags & POOL_FREEZING)))

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/