From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/12] workqueue: simplify is_chained_work()
Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2012 16:32:25 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120930073225.GB10383@mtj.dyndns.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <50657342.6000008@cn.fujitsu.com>
Hello,
On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 05:52:02PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> Main reason: I think the readability of your is the same as mine,
> and your add two lines.
>
> Tiny reason: my code uses only one return. (I don't always keep one return,
> but I try to keep it if it is still clean)
>
> Is there any other reason to change it?
I don't like that the same condition is tested twice but technical
advantages on issues like this are usually too small to be used as the
sole basis to choose one over another and it usually comes down to
preferences. For little things without clear technical advantage,
following maintainer's taste tends to lead to higher consistency. So,
yeah, I'd appreciate if you change it on the next posting or will
probably just change it while applying it.
Thanks.
--
tejun
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-09-30 7:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-09-26 17:20 [PATCH 00/12] workqueue: simple cleanups Lai Jiangshan
2012-09-26 17:20 ` [PATCH 01/12] workqueue: add WORKER_RESCUER Lai Jiangshan
2012-09-26 18:07 ` Tejun Heo
2012-09-28 10:11 ` Lai Jiangshan
2012-09-26 17:20 ` [PATCH 02/12] workqueue: disallow set_cpus_allowed_ptr() from work item Lai Jiangshan
2012-09-26 18:12 ` Tejun Heo
2012-09-26 17:20 ` [PATCH 03/12] workqueue: remove WORKER_PREP from rescuer Lai Jiangshan
2012-09-26 18:24 ` Tejun Heo
2012-09-28 10:04 ` Lai Jiangshan
2012-09-30 7:39 ` Tejun Heo
2012-09-26 17:20 ` [PATCH 04/12] workqueue: simplify is_chained_work() Lai Jiangshan
2012-09-26 18:28 ` Tejun Heo
2012-09-28 9:52 ` Lai Jiangshan
2012-09-30 7:32 ` Tejun Heo [this message]
2012-09-26 17:20 ` [PATCH 05/12] workqueue: don't wake up other workers in rescuer Lai Jiangshan
2012-09-26 18:34 ` Tejun Heo
2012-09-28 10:18 ` Lai Jiangshan
2012-09-26 17:20 ` [PATCH 06/12] workqueue: destroy_worker() can only destory idle worker not just created worker Lai Jiangshan
2012-09-26 18:35 ` Tejun Heo
2012-09-26 17:20 ` [PATCH 07/12] workqueue: remove WORKER_STARTED Lai Jiangshan
2012-09-26 18:36 ` Tejun Heo
2012-09-28 9:52 ` Lai Jiangshan
2012-09-26 17:20 ` [PATCH 08/12] workqueue: fix comments of insert_work() Lai Jiangshan
2012-09-26 17:20 ` [PATCH 09/12] workqueue: declare system_highpri_wq Lai Jiangshan
2012-09-26 17:20 ` [PATCH 10/12] cpu-hotplug.txt: fix comments of work_on_cpu() Lai Jiangshan
2012-09-26 17:20 ` [RFC PATCH 11/12] workqueue: add WQ_CPU_INTENSIVE to system_long_wq Lai Jiangshan
2012-09-26 18:38 ` Tejun Heo
2012-09-28 8:06 ` Lai Jiangshan
2012-09-30 7:22 ` Tejun Heo
2012-09-26 17:20 ` [PATCH 12/12] workqueue: avoid work_on_cpu() to interfere system_wq Lai Jiangshan
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20120930073225.GB10383@mtj.dyndns.org \
--to=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=laijs@cn.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).