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 [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
