Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 16 Feb 2012 20:03:21 +0100 | From | Oleg Nesterov <> | Subject | Re: + syscalls-x86-add-__nr_kcmp-syscall-v8.patch added to -mm tree |
| |
On 02/16, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 06:40:47PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > On 02/16, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote: > > > > > > -static void access_unlock(struct task_struct *task) > > > +static void kcmp_unlock(struct mutex *m1, struct mutex *m2) > > > { > > > - mutex_unlock(&task->signal->cred_guard_mutex); > > > + if (m2 > m1) > > > + swap(m1, m2); > > > > Well, the order doesn't matter in case of _unlock, you can remove > > this part. Not that it really hurts though, I won't argue. > > It drops some instructions so I think it worth removing
Yes.
> (still > unlocking not in reverse order is something which always make > me nervious ;)
Yes ;)
so let me repeat, I am not arguing. But IMHO every piece of code should be understandable. Personally I do not mind at all, just I _personally_ think this code _can_ confuse the reader, "damn why we can't simply unlock in any order???".
If you add the "not really needed" comment above this swap - I agree. If you simply remove this swap - I agree as well.
But. I won't argue if you prefer to keep this patch as is. You are the author. If it looks better to _you_ - OK, this is correct (afaics).
Oleg.
| |