Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 06:25:48 -0700
From: Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com>
To: Nikita Danilov <nikita@clusterfs.com>
Cc: akpm@osdl.org, torvalds@osdl.org, Simon.Derr@bull.net,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpuset semaphore depth check optimize
Message-Id: <20050912062548.4c40395e.pj@sgi.com>
In-Reply-To: <17189.27398.848822.787487@gargle.gargle.HOWL>
References: <20050912113030.15934.9433.sendpatchset@jackhammer.engr.sgi.com>
	<17189.27398.848822.787487@gargle.gargle.HOWL>
Organization: SGI
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 953
Lines: 33

Nikita wrote:
> static void cpuset_{down,up}(void);

I started with (void) calls when I first wrote this hack,
then changed it to taking a semaphore pointer, intentionally.

The calls:
	cpuset_down(&cpuset_sem);
	cpuset_up(&cpuset_sem);
exactly replace calls:
	down(&cpuset_sem);
	up(&cpuset_sem);

I wanted that visual resemblance.

I agree, it's asymmetric, which is not so good.

But the resemblance is more valuable, in my view.

So I will stick with what I've got, unless I see stronger
signs of a concensus to the contrary.

Is that ok?

-- 
                  I won't rest till it's the best ...
                  Programmer, Linux Scalability
                  Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com> 1.925.600.0401
-
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/