Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 16 Apr 2012 23:31:48 +0200 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 11/16] sched: add latency tracing for -deadline tasks. | From | Daniel Vacek <> |
| |
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 21:56, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote: > On Mon, 2012-04-16 at 17:51 +0200, Daniel Vacek wrote: > >> sorry for the question, I'm obviously missing something here but what >> is the logic behind this rewrite? In both cases my gcc generates the >> same code for me. > > Yeah, I noticed that later. I thought it was doing something slightly > different, but after a good nights rest, and re-reading what I wrote in > the morning, it was obviously the same functionality. > > But that said. The final result is much easier to read. And as you > stated, it doesn't make a difference in the final outcome, it ended up > being a good fix (more readable code means less bugs). > > -- Steve
That's exactly why I reacted in the first place. I would say the original code was cleaner and more readable IMHO.
And I twisted my brain hardly in getting what's the difference I can't see for this ugly change ;-) So at the end I compiled both versions and then asked what I'm doing wrong :-)
Glad to hear I was not wrong. So it is up to you (or Juri) which version is the 'right' one.
-- nX
| |