From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S965886AbcIVVdz (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Thu, 22 Sep 2016 17:33:55 -0400
Received: from Galois.linutronix.de ([146.0.238.70]:39461 "EHLO
        Galois.linutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S964986AbcIVVdw (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Thu, 22 Sep 2016 17:33:52 -0400
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2016 23:31:19 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To: Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@hpe.com>
cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>,
        Jason Low <jason.low2@hpe.com>, Scott J Norton <scott.norton@hpe.com>,
        Douglas Hatch <doug.hatch@hpe.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 1/5] futex: Add futex_set_timer() helper
 function
In-Reply-To: <1474378963-15496-2-git-send-email-Waiman.Long@hpe.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1609222317040.5640@nanos>
References: <1474378963-15496-1-git-send-email-Waiman.Long@hpe.com> <1474378963-15496-2-git-send-email-Waiman.Long@hpe.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Tue, 20 Sep 2016, Waiman Long wrote:

Please be more careful of your subject lines. First thing I thought was
that you add a helper which is used in later patches to find out that you
actualy consolidate duplicated code. Something like:

  futex: Consolidate duplicated timer setup code

would have told me right away what this is about.

> This patch adds a new futex_set_timer() function to consolidate all

Please do not use: "This patch ...". We already know that this is a patch,
otherwise it would not be tagged [PATCH n/m] in the subject line.

See Documentation/SubmittingPatches ....

> the sleeping hrtime setup code.

Let me give you a hint:

1:  The code has three identical code copies to set up the futex timeout.

2:  Add a helper function and consolidate the call sites.

#1 tells precisely what the problem is
#2 tells precisely how it is solved

Can you see the difference?

> +/*
> + * Helper function to set the sleeping hrtimer.
> + */
> +static inline void futex_set_timer(ktime_t *time, struct hrtimer_sleeper **pto,
> +		struct hrtimer_sleeper *timeout, int flags, u64 range_ns)

Please use futex_setup_timer() as the function name. I was confused when I
read the other patch that you wanted to "set" the timer before entering
into the place which would actually need it.

> +{
> +	if (!time)
> +		return;
> +	*pto = timeout;

Please don't do that. That's a horrible coding style.

What's wrong with returning NULL or the timeout pointer and assign it to
"to" at the call site?

Thanks,

	tglx