Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 14:47:40 +0100
From: Andreas Mohr <andi@rhlx01.fht-esslingen.de>
To: Con Kolivas <kernel@kolivas.org>
Cc: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>, ck@vds.kolivas.org,
       Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [ck] Re: [PATCH] sched: activate SCHED BATCH expired
Message-ID: <20060317134740.GA7121@rhlx01.fht-esslingen.de>
References: <200603081013.44678.kernel@kolivas.org> <200603172338.10107.kernel@kolivas.org> <441AB8FA.10609@yahoo.com.au> <200603180036.11326.kernel@kolivas.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <200603180036.11326.kernel@kolivas.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 996
Lines: 40

Hi,

On Sat, Mar 18, 2006 at 12:36:10AM +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
> I'm not attached to the style, just the feature. If you think it's warranted 
> I'll change it.

Seconded.

An even nicer way (this solution seems somewhat asymmetric) than

   prio_array_t *target = rq->active;
   if (batch_task(p))
     target = rq->expired;
   enqueue_task(p, target);

may be

   prio_array_t *target;
   if (batch_task(p))
     target = rq->expired;
   else
     target = rq->active;
   enqueue_task(p, target);

and thus (but this coding style may be considered overloaded):

   prio_array_t *target;
   target = batch_task(p) ?
	rq->expired : rq->active;
   enqueue_task(p, target);


But this discussion is clearly growing out of control now ;)

Andreas Mohr
-
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/