pon., 4 mar 2019 o 15:17 Cy Schubert <[email protected]> napisał(a): > > On March 4, 2019 6:30:21 AM PST, Konstantin Belousov <[email protected]> > wrote: > >On Mon, Mar 04, 2019 at 01:31:37PM +0000, Edward Napierala wrote: > >> pon., 4 mar 2019 o 13:20 Konstantin Belousov <[email protected]> > >napisał(a): > >> > > + p = curthread; > >> > Why do you name it 'p', which is typical for process, and not 'td', > >you are > >> > changing most of the code anyway. > >> > >> To keep the diff size smaller. You're right, this touches a lot of > >stuff, > >> but most of those added lines are temporary anyway - they will be > >> removed later, when the td is pushed down even more. > >But if you create code churn, doing it only half way is worse. > > > >> > >> > Also I am curious why. It is certainly fine to remove td when it is > >used > >> > as a formal placeholder argument only. But when the first action in > >the > >> > function is evaluation of curthread() it becomes less obvious. > >> > >> Again, many/most of those are temporary. I'm trying to push td down > >> in small steps, "layer by layer", so it's easy to review. > >> > >> > curthread() become very cheap on modern amd64, I am not so sure > >about > >> > older machines or non-x86 cases. > >> > >> The main reason is readability. Right now there's no easy way to > >tell whether > >> a function can be passed any td, or if it must be curthread. > >I must admit that this is the weirdnest argument against 'td' that I > >ever > >heard. I saw more or less reasonable argumentation > >- that using less arguments make one more register for argument passing > > (amd64 has 6 input arg regs), > >- that less arguments make smaller call code. > >But trust me, in all cases where function can take td != curthread, it > >is > >either obvious or well-known for anybody who works with that code. > > > >Before you start doing a lot of small changes (AKA continous churn) > >please formulate your goals and get some public feedback. My immediate > >question that I want answered before you ever start touching the code, > >is what you plan to do with > > sys_syscall(struct thread *td, uap) > > Agreed on all points. At the very least this group of commits should be > reviewed on phabricator.
It has been, even though they are pretty much mechanical changes. > Can we back all these commits out until there is a proper review, please? The review from the NFS maintainer is not enough? _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-all To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
