On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 22:57:38 +0530
Vaidyanathan Srinivasan <svaidy@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

quoted text
> --- a/include/linux/sched.h
> +++ b/include/linux/sched.h
> @@ -782,6 +782,16 @@ enum powersavings_balance_level {
>  	((sched_mc_power_savings || sched_smt_power_savings) ?	\
>  	 SD_POWERSAVINGS_BALANCE : 0)

What's with all the crappy macros in here?

quoted text
> +/*
> + * Optimise SD flags for power savings:
> + * SD_BALANCE_NEWIDLE helps agressive task consolidation and power savings.
> + * Keep default SD flags if sched_{smt,mc}_power_saving=0
> + */
> +
> +#define POWERSAVING_SD_FLAGS	\
> +	((sched_mc_power_savings || sched_smt_power_savings) ?	\
> +	  SD_BALANCE_NEWIDLE : 0)

This one purports to be a constant, but it isn't - it's code.

It would be cleaner, clearer and more idiomatic to do

static inline int powersaving_sd_flags(void)
{
	...
}

Also, doing (sched_mc_power_savings | sched_smt_power_saving) might
save a branch.

quoted text
>  #define test_sd_parent(sd, flag)	((sd->parent &&		\
>  					 (sd->parent->flags & flag)) ? 1 : 0)

buggy when passed an expression with side-effects.  Doesn't need to be
implemented as a macro.


Sigh.


--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/