* Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> [231212 15:58]: > On Tue, Dec 12, 2023 at 11:46:40AM -0800, Sidhartha Kumar wrote: > > + /* Slot store, does not require additional nodes */ > > + if ((node_size == mas->end) && ((!mt_in_rcu(mas->tree)) > > + || (wr_mas.offset_end - mas->offset == 1))) > > + return 0; > > Should we refactor this into a mas_is_slot_store() predicate? I'm not sure it's worth it as some of these are deciding factors on how the store is executed so I would expect this to live in a single place, long term. Although, long-term this could be two store types: slot store rcu and slot store so that the check only happens once. > > A few coding-style problems with it as it's currently written: > > 1. The indentation on the second line is wrong. It makes the > continuation of the condition look like part of the statement. Use > extra whitespace to indent. eg: > > if ((node_size == mas->end) && ((!mt_in_rcu(mas->tree)) > || (wr_mas.offset_end - mas->offset == 1))) > return 0; > > 2. The operator goes last on the line, not at the beginning of the > continuation line. ie: > > if ((node_size == mas->end) && ((!mt_in_rcu(mas->tree)) || > (wr_mas.offset_end - mas->offset == 1))) > return 0; > > 3. You don't need parens around the !mt_in_rcu(mas->tree). There's > no ambiguity to solve here: > > if ((node_size == mas->end) && (!mt_in_rcu(mas->tree) || > (wr_mas.offset_end - mas->offset == 1))) > return 0; > > But I'd write it as: > > if ((node_size == mas->end) && > (!mt_in_rcu(mas->tree) || (wr_mas.offset_end - mas->offset == 1))) > return 0; > > because then the whitespace matches how you're supposed to parse the > condition, and so the next person to read this code will have an easier > time of it. > > > -- > maple-tree mailing list > maple-tree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/maple-tree
