From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
To: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
linux-mips@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org,
Yoshinori Sato <ysato@users.sourceforge.jp>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
x86@kernel.org, Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, James Hogan <jhogan@kernel.org>,
linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org,
Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@intel.com>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@google.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@c-s.fr>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>,
Vineet Gupta <vgupta@synopsys.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org>,
Paul Burton <paul.burton@mips.com>,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
Subject: Re: [RFC V3] mm: Generalize and rename notify_page_fault() as kprobe_page_fault()
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2019 04:57:29 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <33c6a1cd-5c07-e623-28e5-f31f6fe30394@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <f1b109a3-ef4c-359c-a124-e219e84a6266@arm.com>
On 6/9/19 9:34 PM, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>> Do you really think this is easier to read?
>>
>> Why not just move the x86 version to include/linux/kprobes.h, and replace
>> the int with bool?
> Will just return bool directly without an additional variable here as suggested
> before. But for the conditional statement, I guess the proposed one here is more
> compact than the x86 one.
FWIW, I don't think "compact" is generally a good goal for code. Being
readable is 100x more important than being compact and being un-compact
is only a problem when it hurts readability.
For a function like the one in question, having the individual return
conditions clearly commented is way more important than saving 10 lines
of code.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
To: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org,
linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, sparclinux@vger.kernel.org,
x86@kernel.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@c-s.fr>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@google.com>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>,
Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@intel.com>,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>,
Yoshinori Sato <ysato@users.sourceforge.jp>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
Vineet Gupta <vgupta@synopsys.com>,
linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org,
James Hogan <jhogan@kernel.org>,
linux-mips@vger.kernel.org, Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org>,
Paul Burton <paul.burton@mips.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC V3] mm: Generalize and rename notify_page_fault() as kprobe_page_fault()
Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2019 21:57:29 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <33c6a1cd-5c07-e623-28e5-f31f6fe30394@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <f1b109a3-ef4c-359c-a124-e219e84a6266@arm.com>
On 6/9/19 9:34 PM, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>> Do you really think this is easier to read?
>>
>> Why not just move the x86 version to include/linux/kprobes.h, and replace
>> the int with bool?
> Will just return bool directly without an additional variable here as suggested
> before. But for the conditional statement, I guess the proposed one here is more
> compact than the x86 one.
FWIW, I don't think "compact" is generally a good goal for code. Being
readable is 100x more important than being compact and being un-compact
is only a problem when it hurts readability.
For a function like the one in question, having the individual return
conditions clearly commented is way more important than saving 10 lines
of code.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
To: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
linux-mips@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org,
Yoshinori Sato <ysato@users.sourceforge.jp>,
x86@kernel.org, Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, James Hogan <jhogan@kernel.org>,
linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org,
Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@intel.com>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@google.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>,
Vineet Gupta <vgupta@synopsys.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org>,
Paul Burton <paul.burton@mips.com>,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
Subject: Re: [RFC V3] mm: Generalize and rename notify_page_fault() as kprobe_page_fault()
Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2019 21:57:29 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <33c6a1cd-5c07-e623-28e5-f31f6fe30394@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <f1b109a3-ef4c-359c-a124-e219e84a6266@arm.com>
On 6/9/19 9:34 PM, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>> Do you really think this is easier to read?
>>
>> Why not just move the x86 version to include/linux/kprobes.h, and replace
>> the int with bool?
> Will just return bool directly without an additional variable here as suggested
> before. But for the conditional statement, I guess the proposed one here is more
> compact than the x86 one.
FWIW, I don't think "compact" is generally a good goal for code. Being
readable is 100x more important than being compact and being un-compact
is only a problem when it hurts readability.
For a function like the one in question, having the individual return
conditions clearly commented is way more important than saving 10 lines
of code.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: dave.hansen@intel.com (Dave Hansen)
To: linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [RFC V3] mm: Generalize and rename notify_page_fault() as kprobe_page_fault()
Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2019 21:57:29 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <33c6a1cd-5c07-e623-28e5-f31f6fe30394@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <f1b109a3-ef4c-359c-a124-e219e84a6266@arm.com>
On 6/9/19 9:34 PM, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>> Do you really think this is easier to read?
>>
>> Why not just move the x86 version to include/linux/kprobes.h, and replace
>> the int with bool?
> Will just return bool directly without an additional variable here as suggested
> before. But for the conditional statement, I guess the proposed one here is more
> compact than the x86 one.
FWIW, I don't think "compact" is generally a good goal for code. Being
readable is 100x more important than being compact and being un-compact
is only a problem when it hurts readability.
For a function like the one in question, having the individual return
conditions clearly commented is way more important than saving 10 lines
of code.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
To: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
linux-mips@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org,
Yoshinori Sato <ysato@users.sourceforge.jp>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
x86@kernel.org, Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, James Hogan <jhogan@kernel.org>,
linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org,
Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@intel.com>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@google.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@c-s.fr>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>,
Vineet Gupta <vgupta@synopsys.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org>,
Paul Burton <paul.burton@mips.com>,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
Subject: Re: [RFC V3] mm: Generalize and rename notify_page_fault() as kprobe_page_fault()
Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2019 21:57:29 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <33c6a1cd-5c07-e623-28e5-f31f6fe30394@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <f1b109a3-ef4c-359c-a124-e219e84a6266@arm.com>
On 6/9/19 9:34 PM, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>> Do you really think this is easier to read?
>>
>> Why not just move the x86 version to include/linux/kprobes.h, and replace
>> the int with bool?
> Will just return bool directly without an additional variable here as suggested
> before. But for the conditional statement, I guess the proposed one here is more
> compact than the x86 one.
FWIW, I don't think "compact" is generally a good goal for code. Being
readable is 100x more important than being compact and being un-compact
is only a problem when it hurts readability.
For a function like the one in question, having the individual return
conditions clearly commented is way more important than saving 10 lines
of code.
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-06-10 4:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 66+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-06-07 10:34 [RFC V3] mm: Generalize and rename notify_page_fault() as kprobe_page_fault() Anshuman Khandual
2019-06-07 10:46 ` Anshuman Khandual
2019-06-07 10:34 ` Anshuman Khandual
2019-06-07 10:34 ` Anshuman Khandual
2019-06-07 12:03 ` Stephen Rothwell
2019-06-07 12:03 ` Stephen Rothwell
2019-06-07 12:03 ` Stephen Rothwell
2019-06-07 12:03 ` Stephen Rothwell
2019-06-10 2:23 ` Anshuman Khandual
2019-06-10 2:35 ` Anshuman Khandual
2019-06-10 2:23 ` Anshuman Khandual
2019-06-10 2:23 ` Anshuman Khandual
2019-06-07 15:06 ` Dave Hansen
2019-06-07 15:06 ` Dave Hansen
2019-06-07 15:06 ` Dave Hansen
2019-06-07 15:06 ` Dave Hansen
2019-06-10 4:36 ` Anshuman Khandual
2019-06-10 4:48 ` Anshuman Khandual
2019-06-10 4:36 ` Anshuman Khandual
2019-06-10 4:36 ` Anshuman Khandual
2019-06-07 15:31 ` Christophe Leroy
2019-06-07 15:31 ` Christophe Leroy
2019-06-07 15:31 ` Christophe Leroy
2019-06-07 15:31 ` Christophe Leroy
2019-06-10 2:39 ` Anshuman Khandual
2019-06-10 2:51 ` Anshuman Khandual
2019-06-10 2:39 ` Anshuman Khandual
2019-06-10 2:39 ` Anshuman Khandual
2019-06-10 15:27 ` Leonardo Bras
2019-06-10 15:27 ` Leonardo Bras
2019-06-10 15:27 ` Leonardo Bras
2019-06-10 15:27 ` Leonardo Bras
2019-06-11 5:14 ` Anshuman Khandual
2019-06-11 5:26 ` Anshuman Khandual
2019-06-11 5:14 ` Anshuman Khandual
2019-06-11 5:14 ` Anshuman Khandual
2019-06-11 17:31 ` Leonardo Bras
2019-06-11 17:31 ` Leonardo Bras
2019-06-11 17:31 ` Leonardo Bras
2019-06-11 4:46 ` Christophe Leroy
2019-06-11 4:46 ` Christophe Leroy
2019-06-11 4:46 ` Christophe Leroy
2019-06-11 4:46 ` Christophe Leroy
2019-06-11 5:15 ` Anshuman Khandual
2019-06-11 5:27 ` Anshuman Khandual
2019-06-11 5:15 ` Anshuman Khandual
2019-06-11 5:15 ` Anshuman Khandual
2019-06-07 20:12 ` Matthew Wilcox
2019-06-07 20:12 ` Matthew Wilcox
2019-06-07 20:12 ` Matthew Wilcox
2019-06-07 20:12 ` Matthew Wilcox
2019-06-10 4:34 ` Anshuman Khandual
2019-06-10 4:46 ` Anshuman Khandual
2019-06-10 4:34 ` Anshuman Khandual
2019-06-10 4:34 ` Anshuman Khandual
2019-06-10 4:34 ` Anshuman Khandual
2019-06-10 4:57 ` Dave Hansen [this message]
2019-06-10 4:57 ` Dave Hansen
2019-06-10 4:57 ` Dave Hansen
2019-06-10 4:57 ` Dave Hansen
2019-06-10 4:57 ` Dave Hansen
2019-06-10 5:06 ` Anshuman Khandual
2019-06-10 5:18 ` Anshuman Khandual
2019-06-10 5:06 ` Anshuman Khandual
2019-06-10 5:06 ` Anshuman Khandual
2019-06-10 5:06 ` Anshuman Khandual
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=33c6a1cd-5c07-e623-28e5-f31f6fe30394@intel.com \
--to=dave.hansen@intel.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=andreyknvl@google.com \
--cc=anshuman.khandual@arm.com \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=christophe.leroy@c-s.fr \
--cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=fenghua.yu@intel.com \
--cc=heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com \
--cc=jhogan@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mips@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=linux-s390@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-sh@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux@armlinux.org.uk \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=luto@kernel.org \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=mhocko@suse.com \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=mpe@ellerman.id.au \
--cc=paul.burton@mips.com \
--cc=paulus@samba.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=ralf@linux-mips.org \
--cc=schwidefsky@de.ibm.com \
--cc=sfr@canb.auug.org.au \
--cc=sparclinux@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=tony.luck@intel.com \
--cc=vgupta@synopsys.com \
--cc=will.deacon@arm.com \
--cc=willy@infradead.org \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
--cc=ysato@users.sourceforge.jp \
/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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.