From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Zijlstra Subject: [ofa-general] Re: [patch 01/10] emm: mm_lock: Lock a process against reclaim Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2008 15:55:48 +0200 Message-ID: <1207576548.15579.43.camel@twins> References: <20080404223048.374852899@sgi.com> <20080404223131.271668133@sgi.com> <47F6B5EA.6060106@goop.org> <20080405004127.GG14784@duo.random> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20080405004127.GG14784@duo.random> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: general-bounces@lists.openfabrics.org Errors-To: general-bounces@lists.openfabrics.org To: Andrea Arcangeli Cc: Jeremy Fitzhardinge , kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, steiner@sgi.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Robin Holt , general@lists.openfabrics.org, Christoph Lameter List-Id: linux-mm.kvack.org On Sat, 2008-04-05 at 02:41 +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > On Fri, Apr 04, 2008 at 04:12:42PM -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > > I think you can break this if() down a bit: > > > > if (!(vma->vm_file && vma->vm_file->f_mapping)) > > continue; > > It makes no difference at runtime, coding style preferences are quite > subjective. I'll have to concurr with Jeremy here, please break that monstrous if stmt down. It might not matter to the compiler, but it sure as hell helps for anyone trying to understand/maintain the thing.