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

[Tejun Heo]

Hello,

On 12/02/2009 06:05 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> 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()?

Sure, I can rename it.

> 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.

The three bools aren't the prettiest thing in the world but I couldn't
prevent gcc from re-evaluating expressions without those.

> I think it would _look_ better with the thing just
> duplicated/stripped down and called what it is,
> sched_notifier_wakeup() or such.

Sorry, I'm not following.  Can you elaborate a bit?

> 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.

Will update.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
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/