On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 5:22 PM, Américo Wang <xiyou.wangcong@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 4:54 PM, Liu Aleaxander <aleaxander@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > <snip> > >> >>>it's trivial, not so much an improvement, IMO. >> So, shouldn't we do the optimize when there is a way to do that? >> >> While, I don't think so. And BTW, it's not just a problem of >> optimization, but also make it be more sense: JUST call expand when >> need. I don't know why you are rejecting about this, especially it did >> optimized one call path(as you said), and it doesn't make the code >> uglier than before but making it be more sense, and, in fact, a kind >> of more readable. > > > I am not rejecting it, I said this is trivial, so accepting it or droping > it both are OK for me. > > I don't think the orignal code is ugly, I didn't say the old code is ugly either. ;) >'< fdt->max_fds' is not checked for expand_files(), but for find_next_zero_bit(). According to the old code, it's true, but it can also be applied to expand_files checking. And just like what I said, we did rarely need expand the file table as usual; even though we need, one-time expand will be enough for a long while as it doubles the original size. (Am I right?). -- regards Liu Aleaxander -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
