On Tue, 20 Sep 2016, Waiman Long wrote:

Please be more careful of your subject lines. First thing I thought was
that you add a helper which is used in later patches to find out that you
actualy consolidate duplicated code. Something like:

  futex: Consolidate duplicated timer setup code

would have told me right away what this is about.

> This patch adds a new futex_set_timer() function to consolidate all

Please do not use: "This patch ...". We already know that this is a patch,
otherwise it would not be tagged [PATCH n/m] in the subject line.

See Documentation/SubmittingPatches ....

> the sleeping hrtime setup code.

Let me give you a hint:

1:  The code has three identical code copies to set up the futex timeout.

2:  Add a helper function and consolidate the call sites.

#1 tells precisely what the problem is
#2 tells precisely how it is solved

Can you see the difference?

> +/*
> + * Helper function to set the sleeping hrtimer.
> + */
> +static inline void futex_set_timer(ktime_t *time, struct hrtimer_sleeper 
> **pto,
> +             struct hrtimer_sleeper *timeout, int flags, u64 range_ns)

Please use futex_setup_timer() as the function name. I was confused when I
read the other patch that you wanted to "set" the timer before entering
into the place which would actually need it.

> +{
> +     if (!time)
> +             return;
> +     *pto = timeout;

Please don't do that. That's a horrible coding style.

What's wrong with returning NULL or the timeout pointer and assign it to
"to" at the call site?



To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to