Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] sched/pelt: Change the type of parameter running to
 bool
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
CC:     <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <mingo@redhat.com>,
        <juri.lelli@redhat.com>, <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
References: <20211125030019.10447-1-tangyizhou@huawei.com>
 <20211125030019.10447-3-tangyizhou@huawei.com>
 <YZ9dqgjSkA/Uv+7D@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
From:   Tang Yizhou <tangyizhou@huawei.com>
Message-ID: <369f5d0d-41c2-2248-4f4f-f3491416b428@huawei.com>
Date:   Thu, 25 Nov 2021 20:59:47 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <YZ9dqgjSkA/Uv+7D@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 2021/11/25 17:55, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 11:00:19AM +0800, Tang Yizhou wrote:
>> Parameter 'running' in function ___update_load_sum() and
>> accumulate_sum() describes whether an se is running or not, so change
>> the type of it to bool to make the code more readable.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Tang Yizhou <tangyizhou@huawei.com>
>> ---
>>  kernel/sched/pelt.c | 4 ++--
>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/pelt.c b/kernel/sched/pelt.c
>> index 3584df2a0b8e..2010b3bd6e49 100644
>> --- a/kernel/sched/pelt.c
>> +++ b/kernel/sched/pelt.c
>> @@ -104,7 +104,7 @@ static u32 __accumulate_pelt_segments(u64 periods, u32 d1, u32 d3)
>>   */
>>  static __always_inline u32
>>  accumulate_sum(u64 delta, struct sched_avg *sa,
>> -	       unsigned long load, unsigned long runnable, int running)
>> +	       unsigned long load, unsigned long runnable, bool running)
>>  {
>>  	u32 contrib = (u32)delta; /* p == 0 -> delta < 1024 */
>>  	u64 periods;
>> @@ -182,7 +182,7 @@ accumulate_sum(u64 delta, struct sched_avg *sa,
>>   */
>>  static __always_inline int
>>  ___update_load_sum(u64 now, struct sched_avg *sa,
>> -		  unsigned long load, unsigned long runnable, int running)
>> +		  unsigned long load, unsigned long runnable, bool running)
>>  {
>>  	u64 delta;
> 
> And this function has:
> 
> 	runnable = running = 0;
> 
> and then people complain about assigning 0 to _Bool, and then we get
> idiocy like:
> 
> 	runnable = running = false;
> 
> Please...
> .
> 

I see, assigning 0 to _Bool is inappropriate.
Thanks for your review.