[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20161217001310.GF62123@f23x64.localdomain>
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2016 16:13:10 -0800
From: Darren Hart <dvhart@...radead.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...nel.org, juri.lelli@....com,
rostedt@...dmis.org, xlpang@...hat.com, bigeasy@...utronix.de,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
jdesfossez@...icios.com, bristot@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v4 03/10] futex: Cleanup variable names for
futex_top_waiter()
On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 09:36:41AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> futex_top_waiter() returns the top-waiter on the pi_mutex. Assinging
> this to a variable 'match' totally obscures the code.
>
Yes please.
One wording nit...
> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@...radead.org>
> ---
> kernel/futex.c | 30 +++++++++++++++---------------
> 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
>
> --- a/kernel/futex.c
> +++ b/kernel/futex.c
> @@ -1317,11 +1317,11 @@ static int wake_futex_pi(u32 __user *uad
>
> /*
> * It is possible that the next waiter (the one that brought
> - * this owner to the kernel) timed out and is no longer
> + * top_waiter owner to the kernel) timed out and is no longer
> * waiting on the lock.
> */
This breaks my parser (and did before too).
Consider:
/*
* It is possible that the next waiter (that caused top_waiter to call
* into the kernel) has since timed out and is no longer waiting on the
* lock.
*/
Is that clearer?
--
Darren Hart
Intel Open Source Technology Center
Powered by blists - more mailing lists