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 S1755364AbdEKIjV (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Thu, 11 May 2017 04:39:21 -0400
Received: from Galois.linutronix.de ([146.0.238.70]:47994 "EHLO
        Galois.linutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1754859AbdEKIjU (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Thu, 11 May 2017 04:39:20 -0400
Date: Thu, 11 May 2017 10:39:10 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
cc: Anju T Sudhakar <anju@linux.vnet.ibm.com>, stewart@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
        ego@linux.vnet.ibm.com, mikey@neuling.org, maddy@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, eranian@google.com,
        hemant@linux.vnet.ibm.com, Anton Blanchard <anton@samba.org>,
        sukadev@linux.vnet.ibm.com, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
        dja@axtens.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 05/10] powerpc/perf: IMC pmu cpumask and cpuhotplug
 support
In-Reply-To: <20170511094022.38a32f2e@canb.auug.org.au>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1705111033500.1758@nanos>
References: <1493907596-11425-1-git-send-email-anju@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1493907596-11425-6-git-send-email-anju@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1705101116380.1979@nanos> <20170511094022.38a32f2e@canb.auug.org.au>
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 Thu, 11 May 2017, Stephen Rothwell wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> On Wed, 10 May 2017 14:09:53 +0200 (CEST) Thomas Gleixner <tglx@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