lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Apr]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/3] x86: modify show_shared_cpu_map in intel_cacheinfo v3
Mike wrote:
+ n = type?
+ cpulist_scnprintf(buf, len-2, *mask):
+ cpumask_scnprintf(buf, len-2, *mask);

I suspect most of us would find the following variant easier to read:

if (type)
n = cpulist_scnprintf(buf, len - 2, *mask);
else
n = cpumask_scnprintf(buf, len - 2, *mask);

Then, going further, the rather too vague "type" parameter name,
without comment and taking just bare constant values 0 or 1, seems
more opaque than necessary.

I can imagine this being easier to read as something like:


typedef enum { print_as_mask, print_as_list } map_printer_t;
static ssize_t show_shared_cpu_map_func(struct _cpuid4_info *this_leaf,
map_printer_t mpt, char *buf)
{
ptrdiff_t len = PTR_ALIGN(buf + PAGE_SIZE - 1, PAGE_SIZE) - buf;
int n = 0;
if (len > 1) {
cpumask_t *mask = &this_leaf->shared_cpu_map;
if (mpt == print_as_mask)
n = cpumask_scnprintf(buf, len - 2, *mask);
else
n = cpulist_scnprintf(buf, len - 2, *mask);
buf[n++] = '\n';
buf[n] = '\0';
}
return n;
}
static inline ssize_t show_shared_cpu_map(struct _cpuid4_info *leaf, char *buf)
{
return show_shared_cpu_map_func(leaf, print_as_mask, buf);
}
static inline ssize_t show_shared_cpu_list(struct _cpuid4_info *leaf, char *buf)
{
return show_shared_cpu_map_func(leaf, print_as_list, buf);
}


--
I won't rest till it's the best ...
Programmer, Linux Scalability
Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com> 1.940.382.4214


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-04-10 16:01    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site