Re: [PATCH] cpuset semaphore depth check optimize

Nikita wrote:
> static void cpuset_{down,up}(void);

I started with (void) calls when I first wrote this hack,
then changed it to taking a semaphore pointer, intentionally.

The calls:
	cpuset_down(&cpuset_sem);
	cpuset_up(&cpuset_sem);
exactly replace calls:
	down(&cpuset_sem);
	up(&cpuset_sem);

I wanted that visual resemblance.

I agree, it's asymmetric, which is not so good.

But the resemblance is more valuable, in my view.

So I will stick with what I've got, unless I see stronger
signs of a concensus to the contrary.

Is that ok?

-- 
                  I won't rest till it's the best ...
                  Programmer, Linux Scalability
                  Paul Jackson <[email protected]> 1.925.600.0401
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

---

• References:
  • [PATCH] cpuset semaphore depth check optimize
    • From: Paul Jackson <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH] cpuset semaphore depth check optimize
    • From: Nikita Danilov <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: [PATCH] nfs client, kernel 2.4.31: readlink result overflow
• Next by Date: Re: [PATCH] RT: Add raw_irqs_disabled to might_sleep
• Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH] cpuset semaphore depth check optimize
• Next by thread: Problem with external USB2 drive
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]