[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230906082323.GA28941@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2023 10:23:23 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Shrikanth Hegde <sshegde@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, bristot@...hat.com,
bsegall@...gle.com, dietmar.eggemann@....com, hdanton@...a.com,
ionela.voinescu@....com, juri.lelli@...hat.com,
len.brown@...el.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mgorman@...e.de,
naveen.n.rao@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com,
ravi.v.shankar@...el.com, ricardo.neri@...el.com,
rostedt@...dmis.org, srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com, v-songbaohua@...o.com,
vincent.guittot@...aro.org, vschneid@...hat.com, x86@...nel.org,
yangyicong@...ilicon.com, yu.c.chen@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Add SMT4 group_smt_balance handling
On Tue, Sep 05, 2023 at 10:54:09AM -0700, Tim Chen wrote:
> > > + goto fully_busy;
> > > + break;
> >
> > This is really daft; why can't this simply be: fallthrough; ? At the
> > very least that break must go.
> >
> >
>
> Yes, the break should go. I was adding the goto to prevent compiler
> from complaining about fall through code.
But that's what we have the fallthrough keyword for, no?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists