Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [patch] 2.4.19-pre10-ac2: O(1) scheduler merge, -A3. | From | Robert Love <> | Date | 16 Jun 2002 20:57:17 -0700 |
| |
On Sun, 2002-06-16 at 20:49, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> i agree with the comment fixes, except these items: > > > - if (unlikely(in_interrupt())) > > - BUG(); > > + BUG_ON(in_interrupt()); > > + > > see the previous mail.
Shrug. Preference I guess... though this is _the_ case for BUG_ON.
> > @@ -1790,4 +1790,4 @@ > > while (!cpu_rq(cpu_logical_map(cpu))->migration_thread) > > schedule_timeout(2); > > } > > -#endif > > +#endif /* CONFIG_SMP */ > > and this is just silly... I can see the point in doing #if comments in > include files, but the nesting here is just so obvious.
I disagree, but OK. I like having the #if marked by the #endif if they are not close... and elsewhere through the kernel mirrors this. While I can scroll up and look - assuming the nesting is sane - a simple comment makes that clear so what is the pain?
> the rest looks fine. (patch of my current 2.5 scheduler tree attached, > against 2.5.22, with some more other nonfunctional bits added as well.)
Rest looks fine.
Then again, this is all invariants and comments so its really not a big deal at all. I guess better this than we are fighting over real code, eh? ;-)
Robert Love
- 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/
| |