lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Jun]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [patch] 2.4.19-pre10-ac2: O(1) scheduler merge, -A3.
From
Date
On Sun, 2002-06-16 at 20:49, Ingo Molnar wrote:

> i agree with the comment fixes, except these items:
>
> > - if (unlikely(in_interrupt()))
> > - BUG();
> > + BUG_ON(in_interrupt());
> > +
>
> see the previous mail.

Shrug. Preference I guess... though this is _the_ case for BUG_ON.

> > @@ -1790,4 +1790,4 @@
> > while (!cpu_rq(cpu_logical_map(cpu))->migration_thread)
> > schedule_timeout(2);
> > }
> > -#endif
> > +#endif /* CONFIG_SMP */
>
> and this is just silly... I can see the point in doing #if comments in
> include files, but the nesting here is just so obvious.

I disagree, but OK. I like having the #if marked by the #endif if they
are not close... and elsewhere through the kernel mirrors this. While I
can scroll up and look - assuming the nesting is sane - a simple comment
makes that clear so what is the pain?

> the rest looks fine. (patch of my current 2.5 scheduler tree attached,
> against 2.5.22, with some more other nonfunctional bits added as well.)

Rest looks fine.

Then again, this is all invariants and comments so its really not a big
deal at all. I guess better this than we are fighting over real code,
eh? ;-)

Robert Love

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:22    [W:0.103 / U:3.748 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site