On 07/26/2010 06:23 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>> * Can you please keep the outer goto repeat loop? I just don't like
>> outermost for (;;).
>
> Okay ... can we put the code in a {} scope to make it clear
> where does the loop starts and ends?
If we're gonna do that, it would be better to put it inside a loop
construct. The reason why I don't like it is that loops like that
don't really help read/writeability much while indenting the whole
logic unnecessarily and look more like a result of obsession against
goto rather than any practical reason. It's just a cosmetic
preference and I might as well be the weirdo here, so if you feel
strong about it, please feel free to put everything in a loop.
>> * Placing try_to_freeze() could be a bit annoying. It shouldn't be
>> executed when there's a work to flush.
>
> It currently seems to be executed when there is work to flush.
> Is this wrong?
Oh, does it? As I wrote in the other mail, things like that wouldn't
necessarily break correctness but I think it would be better to avoid
surprises in the generic code if not too difficult.
>> * I think A - B <= 0 test would be more familiar. At least
>> time_before/after() are implemented that way.
>
> I am concerned that this overflows a signed integer -
> which I seem to remeber that C99 disallows.
Really? Overflows of pointer isn't expected and that's why we have
weird RELOC_HIDE() macro for such calculations but integers not
expected to overflow is a news to me. Are you sure? That basically
means time_before/after() aren't safe either.
> timer macros are on data path so might be worth the risk there,
> but flush is slow path so better be safe?
I don't think performance matters much here. I just think the sign
test is clearer / more familiar for the logic.
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
