On Wed, 2019-06-19 at 17:18 +0200, Dietmar Eggemann wrote: > On 6/19/19 3:57 PM, Rik van Riel wrote: > > > That would work, but task_h_load then dereferences > > task->se to get the se->avg.load_avg value. > > > > Going back to task from the se, only to then get the > > se from the task seems a little unnecessary :) > > > > Can you explain why you think task_h_load(task_of(se)) > > would be better? I think I may be overlooking something. > > Ah, OK, I just wanted to avoid having task_se_h_load() and > task_h_load() > at the same time. You could replace the remaining calls to > task_h_load(p) with task_se_h_load(&p->se) in this case. > > - task_load = task_h_load(p); > + task_load = task_se_h_load(&p->se); > > Not that important though right now ...
That I can do. I might as well do that while going through the rest of the series to merge in the bug fix that I have for the performance regression, and the fixes for compilation with other config options. Thank you for the suggestion. -- All Rights Reversed.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
