On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 03:28:04AM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> "if (!freezable || !(pwq->pool->flags & POOL_FREEZING))" is hard to read.
>
> Swap the two branches. it becomes
> "if (freezable && (pwq->pool->flags & POOL_FREEZING))", it is better.
>
> Signed-off-by: Lai Jiangshan <[email protected]>
> ---
> kernel/workqueue.c | 6 +++---
> 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/workqueue.c b/kernel/workqueue.c
> index e1b31fc..8c882ae 100644
> --- a/kernel/workqueue.c
> +++ b/kernel/workqueue.c
> @@ -3592,14 +3592,14 @@ static void pwq_adjust_max_active(struct
> pool_workqueue *pwq)
>
> spin_lock(&pwq->pool->lock);
>
> - if (!freezable || !(pwq->pool->flags & POOL_FREEZING)) {
> + if (freezable && (pwq->pool->flags & POOL_FREEZING)) {
> + pwq->max_active = 0;
> + } else {
> pwq->max_active = wq->saved_max_active;
>
> while (!list_empty(&pwq->delayed_works) &&
> pwq->nr_active < pwq->max_active)
> pwq_activate_first_delayed(pwq);
> - } else {
> - pwq->max_active = 0;
Well, I have tendency to put what I think is the "main" branch above
(which also is what compiler assumes to be the hotter path too without
other input, not that it matters here), but yeah, maybe swapping them
is prettier. Does this even matter?
Trying the patch.... hmm.... I don't know. It looks weirder that way.
Maybe we can do the following if !A || !B bothers you?
if (!(freezable && (pwq->pool->flags & POOL_FREEZING)))
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
