From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751499AbaJWVQU (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Oct 2014 17:16:20 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:8368 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750812AbaJWVQT (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Oct 2014 17:16:19 -0400 Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2014 23:13:04 +0200 From: Oleg Nesterov To: "Paul E. McKenney" Cc: Dave Jones , Linux Kernel , htejun@gmail.com Subject: Re: rcu_preempt detected stalls. Message-ID: <20141023211304.GA10813@redhat.com> References: <20141013173504.GA27955@redhat.com> <20141023183232.GW4977@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20141023191319.GA5137@redhat.com> <20141023193807.GZ4977@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20141023195337.GA7768@redhat.com> <20141023202443.GE4977@linux.vnet.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20141023202443.GE4977@linux.vnet.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 10/23, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > Your code, your rules. ;-) Heh, no. I do not trust my (perverted) taste, I never-never argue with cosmetic issues ;) Cough... and at the same time I have a small nit. > But given this structure, why not use a for() loop replace the > "goto retry" with an inverted condition and a "return error"? > Maybe something like the following patch? Thanks, Acked-by: Oleg Nesterov