Re: [PATCH 11/16] sched: add latency tracing for -deadline tasks.

[Daniel Vacek]

On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 21:56, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-04-16 at 17:51 +0200, Daniel Vacek wrote:
>
>> sorry for the question, I'm obviously missing something here but what
>> is the logic behind this rewrite? In both cases my gcc generates the
>> same code for me.
>
> Yeah, I noticed that later. I thought it was doing something slightly
> different, but after a good nights rest, and re-reading what I wrote in
> the morning, it was obviously the same functionality.
>
> But that said. The final result is much easier to read. And as you
> stated, it doesn't make a difference in the final outcome, it ended up
> being a good fix (more readable code means less bugs).
>
> -- Steve

That's exactly why I reacted in the first place. I would say the
original code was cleaner and more readable IMHO.

And I twisted my brain hardly in getting what's the difference I can't
see for this ugly change ;-) So at the end I compiled both versions
and then asked what I'm doing wrong :-)

Glad to hear I was not wrong. So it is up to you (or Juri) which
version is the 'right' one.

-- nX
--
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/