On Tue, 23 Jul 2013 17:15:02 +0100 David Howells <dhowe...@redhat.com> wrote:
> Jeff Layton <jlay...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > @@ -333,7 +333,8 @@ int __wait_on_atomic_t(wait_queue_head_t *wq, struct > > > wait_bit_queue *q, > > > prepare_to_wait(wq, &q->wait, mode); > > > val = q->key.flags; > > > if (atomic_read(val) == 0) > > > - ret = (*action)(val); > > > + break; > > > + ret = (*action)(val); > > > } while (!ret && atomic_read(val) != 0); > > > > nit: can you now eliminate the check for "val" in the while condition? > > It doesn't look like it harms anything, but eliminating it would > > probably simplify the code slightly... > > Its presence means that we don't have to call prepare_to_wait() again if val > became 0. > > David Ok, and prepare_to_wait involves taking spinlocks, etc... Got it! Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlay...@redhat.com> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
