On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 08:09:54PM -0500, Dongsheng Yang wrote:
> On 01/27/2014 05:32 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 05:15:39PM -0500, Dongsheng Yang wrote:
> >>+/**
> >>+ * task_prio - return the priority value of a given task.
> >>+ * @p: the task in question.
> >>+ *
> >>+ * Return: The priority value as seen by users in /proc.
> >>+ * RT tasks are offset by -200. Normal tasks are centered
> >>+ * around 0, value goes from -16 to +15.
> >>+ */
> >>+static inline int task_prio(const struct task_struct *p)
> >>+{
> >>+ return p->prio - MAX_RT_PRIO;
> >>+}
> >Who would ever want to use/rely on this? It doesn't make any sense. And
> >therefore it shouldn't ever be considered time critical.
>
> I just copy it from kernel/sched/core.c. Currently, it is used in
> fs/proc/array.c.
Just leave it there. Nobody should use this value anyhow.
> >>+/**
> >>+ * task_nice - return the nice value of a given task.
> >>+ * @p: the task in question.
> >>+ *
> >>+ * Return: The nice value [ -20 ... 0 ... 19 ].
> >>+ */
> >>+static inline int task_nice(const struct task_struct *p)
> >>+{
> >>+ return TASK_NICE(p);
> >>+}
> >Urgh, no. Just remove the macro already. Although arguably we should
> >remove ->static_prio and clean up that entire mess.
> >
>
> Oops, sorry for the noise. I am a newbie here, could you help to point out
> that
> which tree is the latest version for sched. Thanx :)
tip/sched/core or tip/master, but that's not the issue. There's no point
in having an inline and a macro that do the exact same thing.
--
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/
