Re: [PATCH] (latest tip) make dequeue_task less confusing

[David Newall]

Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * David Newall <davidn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>   
>> No.  On further consideration, I don't like my patch.
>>     
>
> With the __dequeue_task()+inline suggestion i made i think it 
> would be a micro-optimization and would not break symmetry in a 
> significant way.

What I realised, upon closer examination, is that enqueue_task has the
same issue (with wakeup); and that the one places where sleep and wakeup
are set are in a single call for each, to (de|en)activate_task. If it
made sense to do what I suggested, then it should be done all the way,
that is, move the sleep and wakeup code to those two places, and
replicate the (admittedly smaller) *queue_task and *activate_task at
those points. This smacks of premature optimisation.
--
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/