Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 20 Sep 2016 08:03:28 -0700 | From | Davidlohr Bueso <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH -next v2 0/5] ipc/sem: semop(2) improvements |
| |
On Mon, 19 Sep 2016, Manfred Spraul wrote: >On 09/18/2016 09:11 PM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
>>Davidlohr Bueso (5): >> ipc/sem: do not call wake_sem_queue_do() prematurely >The only patch that I don't like. >Especially: patch 2 of the series removes the wake_up_q from the >function epilogue. >So only the code duplication (additional instances of >rcu_read_unlock()) remains, I don't see any advantages. > >> ipc/sem: rework task wakeups >Acked
Thanks.
>> ipc/sem: optimize perform_atomic_semop() >I'm still thinking about it. >Code duplication is evil, but perhaps it is the best solution. > >What I don't like is the hardcoded "< BITS_PER_LONG". >At least: >- (1 << sop->sem_num) >+ (1 << (sop->sem_num%BITS_PER_LONG))
Yeah, I'll send v3 for that.
>> ipc/sem: explicitly inline check_restart >Do we really need that? Isn't that the compiler's task? >Especially since the compiler is already doing it correctly.
Yes, I mentioned in the changelog that the compiler does it and this is merely explicit. That said I see no harm in it, I guess whatever akpm says.
>> ipc/sem: use proper list api for pending_list wakeups >Acked
Thanks, Davidlohr
| |