lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Sep]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/2] mm: Cleanup clearing of BDI_pending bit in bdi_forker_thread()
    On Mon, Sep 05, 2011 at 06:06:12PM +0800, Jan Kara wrote:
    > On Sun 04-09-11 12:13:05, Wu Fengguang wrote:
    > > On Sun, Sep 04, 2011 at 11:04:42AM +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
    > > > On Sat, Sep 03, 2011 at 06:54:18AM +0800, Jan Kara wrote:
    > > > > bdi_forker_thread() clears BDI_pending bit at the end of the main loop.
    > > > > However clearing of this bit must not be done in some cases which is handled by
    > > > > calling 'continue' from switch statement. That's kind of unusual construct and
    > > > > without a good reason so change the function into more intuitive code flow.
    > > > >
    > > > > CC: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
    > > > > CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
    > > > > Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
    > > >
    > > > It's pure code refactor.
    > > >
    > > > Reviewed-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
    > >
    > > But I do suspect it will slightly increase the code size.
    > > What do you think?
    > I haven't checked, maybe it will if the compiler is not clever enough to
    > merge two occurences of the function which is going to be inlined. But the
    > overhead will be really small and the code is not really performance critical
    > so I think clarity has priority.

    I have no problem then. It's not a big matter.

    Thanks,
    Fengguang


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2011-09-05 14:53    [W:0.043 / U:0.188 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site