[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <33c6a1cd-5c07-e623-28e5-f31f6fe30394@intel.com>
Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2019 21:57:29 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
linux-sh@...r.kernel.org, sparclinux@...r.kernel.org,
x86@...nel.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@....fr>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...gle.com>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
Yoshinori Sato <ysato@...rs.sourceforge.jp>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Vineet Gupta <vgupta@...opsys.com>,
linux-snps-arc@...ts.infradead.org,
James Hogan <jhogan@...nel.org>, linux-mips@...r.kernel.org,
Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>,
Paul Burton <paul.burton@...s.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC V3] mm: Generalize and rename notify_page_fault() as
kprobe_page_fault()
On 6/9/19 9:34 PM, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>> Do you really think this is easier to read?
>>
>> Why not just move the x86 version to include/linux/kprobes.h, and replace
>> the int with bool?
> Will just return bool directly without an additional variable here as suggested
> before. But for the conditional statement, I guess the proposed one here is more
> compact than the x86 one.
FWIW, I don't think "compact" is generally a good goal for code. Being
readable is 100x more important than being compact and being un-compact
is only a problem when it hurts readability.
For a function like the one in question, having the individual return
conditions clearly commented is way more important than saving 10 lines
of code.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists