Re: [PATCH 3/7] sched: refactor try_to_wake_up()

From: Mike Galbraith
Date: Wed Dec 02 2009 - 04:05:50 EST


On Wed, 2009-12-02 at 12:56 +0900, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Factor ttwu_activate() and ttwu_woken_up() out of try_to_wake_up().

Nit: ttwu_woken_up() sounds decidedly strange to my ear. Perhaps
ttwu_post_activation()?

As a $.02 comment, factoring here doesn't look nice, reader scrolls
around whereas he currently sees all the why/wherefore at a glance.
Needing to pass three booleans for stats also looks bad. I think it
would _look_ better with the thing just duplicated/stripped down and
called what it is, sched_notifier_wakeup() or such.

Which leaves growth in it's wake though...

> +/**
> * try_to_wake_up - wake up a thread
> * @p: the to-be-woken-up thread

Nit: thread to be awakened sounds better.

-Mike

--
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/