![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
randy_dunlap wrote:
>On Mon, 16 May 2005 22:17:04 +0200 Patrick Plattes wrote:
>
>| The variable decrease will never be used again in this
>| function, so why this intricate code? Isn't this much easier and works
>| also:
>|
>| for (sop = sops; sop < sops + nsops; sop++) {
>| if (sop->sem_num >= max)
>| max = sop->sem_num;
>| if (sop->sem_flg & SEM_UNDO)
>| undos++;
>| if (sop->sem_op != 0)
>| alter = 1;
>| }
>|
>| Maybe i'm totally wrong, so please correct me and don't shoot me up,
>| 'cause i'm not a os developer.
>
>Looks like a reasonable and correct optimization to me.
>
>
>
It looks correct:
decrease was added during 2.1 development: it's not in 2.0.40, it's in
2.2.26: I think the idea was that operations with decrease can cause
other threads to block, therefore a different wakeup strategy was used.
The wakeup implementation was rewritten, but the loop remained unchanged.
I'll write a patch, thanks Patrick.
--
Manfred
-
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/
| ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-05-22 08:54 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||