(2012/10/18 13:14), Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 9:06 PM, Kamezawa Hiroyuki
<kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
if (vma && vma != priv->tail_vma) {
struct mm_struct *mm = vma->vm_mm;
+#ifdef CONFIG_NUMA
+ task_lock(priv->task);
+ __mpol_put(priv->task->mempolicy);
+ task_unlock(priv->task);
+#endif
up_read(&mm->mmap_sem);
mmput(mm);
Please don't put #ifdef's inside code. It makes things really ugly and
hard to read.
And that is *especially* true in this case, since there's a pattern to
all these things:
+#ifdef CONFIG_NUMA
+ task_lock(priv->task);
+ mpol_get(priv->task->mempolicy);
+ task_unlock(priv->task);
+#endif
+#ifdef CONFIG_NUMA
+ task_lock(priv->task);
+ __mpol_put(priv->task->mempolicy);
+ task_unlock(priv->task);
+#endif
it really sounds like what you want to do is to just abstract a
"numa_policy_get/put(priv)" operation.
So you could make it be something like
#ifdef CONFIG_NUMA
static inline numa_policy_get(struct proc_maps_private *priv)
{
task_lock(priv->task);
mpol_get(priv->task->mempolicy);
task_unlock(priv->task);
}
.. same for the "put" function ..
#else
#define numa_policy_get(priv) do { } while (0)
#define numa_policy_put(priv) do { } while (0)
#endif
and then you wouldn't have to have the #ifdef's in the middle of code,
and I think it will be more readable in general.
Sure, it is going to be a few more actual lines of patch, but there's
no duplicated code sequence, and the added lines are just the syntax
that makes it look better.
you're right, I shouldn't send an ugly patch. I'm sorry.
V2 uses suggested style, I think.
Regards,
-Kame
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>