On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 22:00:10 -0700
Linus Torvalds wrote:
> (*) Technically, "&(x)[0]" is actually a really confused way of saying
> "(x+0)" while making sure that "x" was a valid pointer.
But wait, there's more!
Should someone some day try to use an implementation with a fairly
ferocious
On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 22:00:10 -0700
Linus Torvalds torva...@linux-foundation.org wrote:
(*) Technically, (x)[0] is actually a really confused way of saying
(x+0) while making sure that x was a valid pointer.
But wait, there's more!
Should someone some day try to use an implementation with a
Hey, Linus.
On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 10:00:10PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 9:44 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> >
> > nr_running is atomic_t (*nr_running)[2]. Ignoring the pointer to
> > array part, it's just returning the address of N'th element of the
> > array. ARRAY + N
On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 9:44 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
>
> nr_running is atomic_t (*nr_running)[2]. Ignoring the pointer to
> array part, it's just returning the address of N'th element of the
> array. ARRAY + N == [N].
None of this matters one whit.
You did "&(x)[0]".
That's insane. It's crazy.
Hello, Linus.
On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 09:27:03PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Seeing code like this
>
> + return &(*nr_running)[0];
>
> just makes me go "WTF?"
I was going WTF too. This was the smallest fix and I wanted to make
it minimal because there's another stack of patches on
Seeing code like this
+ return &(*nr_running)[0];
just makes me go "WTF?"
Why are you taking the address of something you just dereferenced (the
"& [0]" part).
And you actually do that *twice*, except the inner one is more
complicated. When you assign nr_runing, you take the address of
>From 8a0597bf9939d50039d4a6f446db51cf920daaad Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Tejun Heo
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 20:50:50 -0700
Introduce NR_WORKER_POOLS and for_each_worker_pool() and convert code
paths which need to manipulate all pools in a gcwq to use them.
NR_WORKER_POOLS is currently one and
From 8a0597bf9939d50039d4a6f446db51cf920daaad Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Tejun Heo t...@kernel.org
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 20:50:50 -0700
Introduce NR_WORKER_POOLS and for_each_worker_pool() and convert code
paths which need to manipulate all pools in a gcwq to use them.
NR_WORKER_POOLS is
Seeing code like this
+ return (*nr_running)[0];
just makes me go WTF?
Why are you taking the address of something you just dereferenced (the
[0] part).
And you actually do that *twice*, except the inner one is more
complicated. When you assign nr_runing, you take the address of it, so
Hello, Linus.
On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 09:27:03PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
Seeing code like this
+ return (*nr_running)[0];
just makes me go WTF?
I was going WTF too. This was the smallest fix and I wanted to make
it minimal because there's another stack of patches on top of it.
On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 9:44 PM, Tejun Heo t...@kernel.org wrote:
nr_running is atomic_t (*nr_running)[2]. Ignoring the pointer to
array part, it's just returning the address of N'th element of the
array. ARRAY + N == ARRAY[N].
None of this matters one whit.
You did (x)[0].
That's insane.
Hey, Linus.
On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 10:00:10PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 9:44 PM, Tejun Heo t...@kernel.org wrote:
nr_running is atomic_t (*nr_running)[2]. Ignoring the pointer to
array part, it's just returning the address of N'th element of the
array. ARRAY
Introduce NR_WORKER_POOLS and for_each_worker_pool() and convert code
paths which need to manipulate all pools in a gcwq to use them.
NR_WORKER_POOLS is currently one and for_each_worker_pool() iterates
over only @gcwq->pool.
Note that nr_running is per-pool property and converted to an array
Introduce NR_WORKER_POOLS and for_each_worker_pool() and convert code
paths which need to manipulate all pools in a gcwq to use them.
NR_WORKER_POOLS is currently one and for_each_worker_pool() iterates
over only @gcwq-pool.
Note that nr_running is per-pool property and converted to an array
with
14 matches
Mail list logo
