Re: [PATCH -mm 1/6] slab: introduce __kfree_rcu

[Ingo Molnar]

* Christoph Lameter <cl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Mon, 23 Mar 2009, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> 
> > > +static inline void *portion_to_obj(void *portion)
> > > +{
> > > +	struct page *page = virt_to_head_page(portion);
> > > +	struct slab *slab = page_get_slab(page);
> > > +	struct kmem_cache *cache = page_get_cache(page);
> > > +	unsigned int offset = portion - slab->s_mem;
> > > +	unsigned int index = offset / cache->buffer_size;
> > > +
> > > +	return index_to_obj(cache, slab, index);
> > > +}
> >
> > A minor nit: I think this would be more readable if you separated
> > variable declarations from the initializations. Also, you can probably
> > drop the inline from the function declaration and let GCC decide what to
> > do.
> 
> Thats debatable. I find the setting up a number of variables that 
> are all dependend in the above manner very readable. They are 
> usually repetitive. Multiple functions use similar 
> initializations.

I agree with Pekka, it's clearly more readable when separated out 
nicely:

	struct kmem_cache *cache;
	unsigned int offset;
	unsigned int index;
	struct page *page;
	struct slab *slab;

	page	= virt_to_head_page(portion);
	slab	= page_get_slab(page);
	cache	= page_get_cache(page);

	offset	= portion - slab->s_mem;
	index	= offset / cache->buffer_size;

The original form is hard to read due to lack of structure.

	Ingo
--
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/