[lkml]   [2012]   [Jul]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 5/6] workqueue: introduce NR_WORKER_POOLS and for_each_worker_pool()
    On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 9:44 PM, Tejun Heo <> wrote:
    > nr_running is atomic_t (*nr_running)[2]. Ignoring the pointer to
    > array part, it's just returning the address of N'th element of the
    > array. ARRAY + N == &ARRAY[N].

    None of this matters one whit.

    You did "&(x)[0]".

    That's insane. It's crazy. It doesn't even matter what "x" is in
    between, it's crazy regardless.

    It's just a really confused way of saying "x" (*). Except it makes the
    code look like an insane monkey on crack got a-hold of your keyboard
    when you weren't looking.

    And to make it worse, "x" itself was the result of doing "*&y". Which
    was probably written by the insane monkey's older brother, Max, who
    has been chewing Quaaludes for a few years, and as a result _his_
    brain really isn't doing too well either. Even for a monkey. And now
    you're letting *him* at your keyboard too?

    So you had two separately (but similarly) insane ways of complicating
    the code so that it was really obfuscated. When it really just
    computed "y" to begin with, it just added all those "x=*&y" and
    "&(x)[0]" games around it to make it look complicated.


    (*) Technically, "&(x)[0]" is actually a really confused way of saying
    "(x+0)" while making sure that "x" was a valid pointer. It basically
    guarantees that if "x" started out as an array, it has now been
    demoted to a pointer - but since arrays will be demoted to pointers by
    pretty much any subsequent operation except for "sizeof()" and a
    couple of other special cases anyway, you can pretty much just say
    that "&(x)[0]" is "(x+0)" is "x".

    And "*&y" really is exactly the same as "y", except for again some
    syntactic checking (ie it is basically an odd way to verify that "y"
    is an lvalue, since you cannot do an address-of of a non-lvalue).

     \ /
      Last update: 2012-07-14 07:41    [W:0.028 / U:41.528 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site