lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Apr]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [git pull] "big box" x86 changes, bootmem/sparsemem


On Sat, 26 Apr 2008, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> #ifdef CONFIG_NUMA
> + nid = phys_to_nid(phys);
> + next_nid = phys_to_nid(phys + len - 1);
> + if (nid == next_nid)
> reserve_bootmem_node(NODE_DATA(nid), phys, len, BOOTMEM_DEFAULT);
> -#else
> - reserve_bootmem(phys, len, BOOTMEM_DEFAULT);
> + else
> #endif
> + reserve_bootmem(phys, len, BOOTMEM_DEFAULT);
> +

Noticed this when just trying to read the code to see if it looks sensible
(without looking at any real details).

Code like this is *not* acceptable.

We do proper indentations. Improperly indented code is buggy. It doesn't
matter if the compiler might generate the same code with or without
indentation, it's still totally unacceptable.

Having preprocessor conditionals that mix things up is not an excuse, and
it might be an argument for not doing the conditional that way (ie maybe
just make sure that when NUMA is not on, nid/next_nid will always be
different, and in a way that the compiler can perhaps see statically that
they are different - so that you can have the conditional there even with
NUMA off, but the compiler will just fold it away?).

Linus


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-04-26 21:55    [W:0.142 / U:0.164 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site