On Thu, 11 May 2017, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, 10 May 2017 14:09:53 +0200 (CEST) Thomas Gleixner
> <t...@linutronix.de> wrote:
> >
> > > +static void nest_change_cpu_context(int old_cpu, int new_cpu)
> > > +{
> > > + int i;
> > > +
> > > + for (i = 0;
> > > + (per_nest_pmu_arr[i] != NULL) && (i < IMC_MAX_PMUS); i++)
> > > + perf_pmu_migrate_context(&per_nest_pmu_arr[i]->pmu,
> > > + old_cpu, new_cpu);
> >
> > Bah, this is horrible to read.
> >
> > struct imc_pmu **pn = per_nest_pmu_arr;
> > int i;
> >
> > for (i = 0; *pn && i < IMC_MAX_PMUS; i++, pn++)
> > perf_pmu_migrate_context(&(*pn)->pmu, old_cpu, new_cpu);
>
> (Just a bit of bike shedding ...)
>
> Or even (since "i" is not used any more):
>
> struct imc_pmu **pn;
>
> for (pn = per_nest_pmu_arr;
> pn < &per_nest_pmu_arr[IMC_MAX_PMUS] && *pn;
> pn++)
> perf_pmu_migrate_context(&(*pn)->pmu, old_cpu, new_cpu);
Which is equally unreadable as the original code I complained about. Is that
a corporate preference?
Thanks,
tglx
