Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 02 Dec 2009 18:51:11 +0900 | From | Tejun Heo <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 3/7] sched: refactor try_to_wake_up() |
| |
Hello,
On 12/02/2009 06:05 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote: > On Wed, 2009-12-02 at 12:56 +0900, Tejun Heo wrote: >> Factor ttwu_activate() and ttwu_woken_up() out of try_to_wake_up(). > > Nit: ttwu_woken_up() sounds decidedly strange to my ear. Perhaps > ttwu_post_activation()?
Sure, I can rename it.
> As a $.02 comment, factoring here doesn't look nice, reader scrolls > around whereas he currently sees all the why/wherefore at a glance. > Needing to pass three booleans for stats also looks bad.
The three bools aren't the prettiest thing in the world but I couldn't prevent gcc from re-evaluating expressions without those.
> I think it would _look_ better with the thing just > duplicated/stripped down and called what it is, > sched_notifier_wakeup() or such.
Sorry, I'm not following. Can you elaborate a bit?
> Which leaves growth in it's wake though... > >> +/** >> * try_to_wake_up - wake up a thread >> * @p: the to-be-woken-up thread > > Nit: thread to be awakened sounds better.
Will update.
Thanks.
-- tejun
| |