Re: [PATCH 3/3] cpuset: fix wrong calculation of relax domain level

[Paul Jackson]

Seems ok to me:

Reviewed-by: Paul Jackson <pj@xxxxxxx>


Li Zefan wrote:
> -			update_domain_attr(dattr, &top_cpuset);
> +			update_domain_attr_tree(dattr, &top_cpuset);

Does this change mean that there is now only -one- place that calls
"update_domain_attr()", that being "update_domain_attr_tree()" ?

If so, then perhaps:
 1) "update_domain_attr()" could be removed as a separate routine,
    with its code folded into "update_domain_attr_tree()".
 2) a proper opening comment could be provided "update_domain_attr()",
    stating what it does, and its locking needs.

The above, if it makes sense, would be an additional PATCH, on top
of your present patches, further refining them.


Separate topic ...

It bothers me a little that there is a generic 'attributes' and related
*_attr() and dattr variable names, all speaking of some set of multiple
generic attributes, such as in:

        struct sched_domain_attr *dattr;  /* attributes for custom domains */

even though, when all is said and done, there is only one attribute,
the relax_domain_level.  The generic, content-free word 'attributes'
just obfuscates the single specific value, relax_domain_level, being
managed here.

... However, I'm too lazy to propose a patch to mess with this.

-- 
                  I won't rest till it's the best ...
                  Programmer, Linux Scalability
                  Paul Jackson <pj@xxxxxxx> 1.940.382.4214
--
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/