[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180601161657.GD1058@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2018 18:16:58 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, ebiederm@...ssion.com,
gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, mingo@...nel.org,
james.morris@...rosoft.com, keescook@...omium.org,
peterz@...radead.org, sds@...ho.nsa.gov, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 10/17] signal: make has_pending_signals() return bool
On 06/01, Christian Brauner wrote:
>
> has_pending_signals() already behaves like a boolean function. Let's
> actually declare it as such too.
But this patch does more.
> - case 4: ready = signal->sig[3] &~ blocked->sig[3];
> - ready |= signal->sig[2] &~ blocked->sig[2];
> - ready |= signal->sig[1] &~ blocked->sig[1];
> - ready |= signal->sig[0] &~ blocked->sig[0];
> + case 4:
> + ready = signal->sig[3] & ~blocked->sig[3];
> + ready |= signal->sig[2] & ~blocked->sig[2];
> + ready |= signal->sig[1] & ~blocked->sig[1];
> + ready |= signal->sig[0] & ~blocked->sig[0];
> break;
Again, personally I do not care at all. But why do you think the code looks
better after re-formatting? This is subjective, but to me it does not.
In particular, note the extra space before "=" removed by this patch. I guess
it was added on purpose, and to me
ready = signal->sig[3] &~ blocked->sig[3];
ready |= signal->sig[2] &~ blocked->sig[2];
actually looks better thab
ready = signal->sig[3] &~ blocked->sig[3];
ready |= signal->sig[2] &~ blocked->sig[2];
after your patch.
Oleg.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists