[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130723122629.6b5ae46e@tlielax.poochiereds.net>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 12:26:29 -0400
From: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>
To: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc: torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-cachefs@...hat.com,
Milosz Tanski <milosz@...in.com>,
Yacine Belkadi <yacine.belkadi.1@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix __wait_on_atomic_t() to call the action func if the
counter != 0
On Tue, 23 Jul 2013 17:15:02 +0100
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com> wrote:
> Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> > > @@ -333,7 +333,8 @@ int __wait_on_atomic_t(wait_queue_head_t *wq, struct wait_bit_queue *q,
> > > prepare_to_wait(wq, &q->wait, mode);
> > > val = q->key.flags;
> > > if (atomic_read(val) == 0)
> > > - ret = (*action)(val);
> > > + break;
> > > + ret = (*action)(val);
> > > } while (!ret && atomic_read(val) != 0);
> >
> > nit: can you now eliminate the check for "val" in the while condition?
> > It doesn't look like it harms anything, but eliminating it would
> > probably simplify the code slightly...
>
> Its presence means that we don't have to call prepare_to_wait() again if val
> became 0.
>
> David
Ok, and prepare_to_wait involves taking spinlocks, etc...
Got it!
Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>
--
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