On Wed, Jan 05, 2022 at 08:35:04PM +0100, Michal Koutn? wrote:
>On Sat, Dec 25, 2021 at 12:09:32AM +0000, Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> This means we can remove the check on ->updated_next, if we make sure
>> the subtree from @root is on list, which could be done by checking
>> updated_next for root.
>
>Nice refactoring.
>
>> @@ -96,9 +97,12 @@ static struct cgroup *cgroup_rstat_cpu_pop_updated(struct cgroup *pos,
>> * We're gonna walk down to the first leaf and visit/remove it. We
>> * can pick whatever unvisited node as the starting point.
>> */
>> - if (!pos)
>> + if (!pos) {
>> pos = root;
>> - else
>> + // return NULL if this subtree is not on-list
>> + if (!cgroup_rstat_cpu(pos, cpu)->updated_next)
>> + return NULL;
>> + } else
>+ /* return NULL if this subtree is not on-list */
>
>Just a coding style nitpick.
Thanks for comment. Would you like me to send a v2?
>
>The patch is otherwise
>Reviewed-by: Michal Koutn? <mkoutny@xxxxxxxx>
--
Wei Yang
Help you, Help me
