Re: [PATCH 4/8] Cleanup kmem_cache_create()

[Pekka J Enberg <penberg@cs.Helsinki.FI>]

On Mon, 7 Nov 2005, Matthew Dobson wrote:
> @@ -1652,9 +1649,9 @@ kmem_cache_t *kmem_cache_create(const ch
>  		 * gfp() funcs are more friendly towards high-order requests,
>  		 * this should be changed.
>  		 */
> -		do {
> -			unsigned int break_flag = 0;
> -cal_wastage:
> +		unsigned int break_flag = 0;
> +
> +		for ( ; ; cachep->gfporder++) {
>  			cache_estimate(cachep->gfporder, size, align, flags,
>  						&left_over, &cachep->num);
>  			if (break_flag)
> @@ -1662,13 +1659,13 @@ cal_wastage:
>  			if (cachep->gfporder >= MAX_GFP_ORDER)
>  				break;
>  			if (!cachep->num)
> -				goto next;
> -			if (flags & CFLGS_OFF_SLAB &&
> -					cachep->num > offslab_limit) {
> +				continue;
> +			if ((flags & CFLGS_OFF_SLAB) &&
> +			    (cachep->num > offslab_limit)) {
>  				/* This num of objs will cause problems. */
> -				cachep->gfporder--;
> +				cachep->gfporder -= 2;

This is not an improvement IMHO. The use of for construct is non-intuitive
and neither is the above. A suggested cleanup is to keep the loop as is but
extract it to a function of its own.

				Pekka
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/