Re: [RFC][PATCH 5/14] Introduce union stack

[Serge E. Hallyn]

Quoting Paul Dickson (paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx):
> On Mon, 14 May 2007 13:23:06 -0700, Badari Pulavarty wrote:
> 
> > > +	while (fs) {
> > > +		locked = union_trylock(fs->root);
> > > +		if (!locked)
> > > +			goto loop1;
> > > +		locked = union_trylock(fs->altroot);
> > > +		if (!locked)
> > > +			goto loop2;
> > > +		locked = union_trylock(fs->pwd);
> > > +		if (!locked)
> > > +			goto loop3;
> > > +		break;
> > > +	loop3:
> > > +		union_unlock(fs->altroot);
> > > +	loop2:
> > > +		union_unlock(fs->root);
> > > +	loop1:
> > > +		read_unlock(&fs->lock);
> > > +		UM_DEBUG_LOCK("Failed to get all semaphores in fs_struct!\n");
> > > +		cpu_relax();
> > > +		read_lock(&fs->lock);
> > > +		continue;
> > 
> > Nit.. why "continue" ?
> > 
> > > +	}
> > > +	BUG_ON(!fs);
> 
> How about getting rid of the gotos:
> 
> 	while (fs) {
> 		locked = union_trylock(fs->root);
> 		if (locked) {
> 			locked = union_trylock(fs->altroot);
> 			if (locked) {
> 				locked = union_trylock(fs->pwd);
> 				if (locked)
> 					break;
> 				else {
> 					union_unlock(fs->altroot);
> 					union_unlock(fs->root);
> 				}
> 			else
> 				union_unlock(fs->root);
> 			}
> 		}
> 		read_unlock(&fs->lock);
> 		UM_DEBUG_LOCK("Failed to get all semaphores in fs_struct!\n");
> 		cpu_relax();
> 		read_lock(&fs->lock);
> 	}
> 	BUG_ON(!fs);
> 
> It's the same number of lines.  Shorter if you get rid of the "locked"
> variable.

I dunno, I thought the goto versoin was cleaner and easier to tell that
the right locks are getting unlocked.  The worst part in the second
version is the break in the middle!

-serge
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/