Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2019 15:26:39 +0000 From: Edward Napierala <trasz@freebsd.org> To: Cy Schubert <Cy.Schubert@cschubert.com> Cc: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com>, src-committers <src-committers@freebsd.org>, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, svn-src-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r344758 - in head/sys/fs: nfs nfsserver Message-ID: <CAFLM3-pFi_-yhMx4bhm_0S5FK3BdLh1xbXV%2BcKgPks7d8cttMw@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <FF146246-2FFD-4FC7-9720-7D72D1AFEB29@cschubert.com> References: <201903041302.x24D2aG0093620@repo.freebsd.org> <20190304132021.GN68879@kib.kiev.ua> <CAFLM3-pLSQ8sBawC9YBTgxdMKhtNtoQG1bn2QVDuw-2tDKb4Gg@mail.gmail.com> <20190304143021.GO68879@kib.kiev.ua> <FF146246-2FFD-4FC7-9720-7D72D1AFEB29@cschubert.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
pon., 4 mar 2019 o 15:17 Cy Schubert <Cy.Schubert@cschubert.com> napisa=C5= =82(a): > > On March 4, 2019 6:30:21 AM PST, Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com= > wrote: > >On Mon, Mar 04, 2019 at 01:31:37PM +0000, Edward Napierala wrote: > >> pon., 4 mar 2019 o 13:20 Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> > >napisa=C5=82(a): > >> > > + p =3D curthread; > >> > Why do you name it 'p', which is typical for process, and not 'td', > >you are > >> > changing most of the code anyway. > >> > >> To keep the diff size smaller. You're right, this touches a lot of > >stuff, > >> but most of those added lines are temporary anyway - they will be > >> removed later, when the td is pushed down even more. > >But if you create code churn, doing it only half way is worse. > > > >> > >> > Also I am curious why. It is certainly fine to remove td when it is > >used > >> > as a formal placeholder argument only. But when the first action in > >the > >> > function is evaluation of curthread() it becomes less obvious. > >> > >> Again, many/most of those are temporary. I'm trying to push td down > >> in small steps, "layer by layer", so it's easy to review. > >> > >> > curthread() become very cheap on modern amd64, I am not so sure > >about > >> > older machines or non-x86 cases. > >> > >> The main reason is readability. Right now there's no easy way to > >tell whether > >> a function can be passed any td, or if it must be curthread. > >I must admit that this is the weirdnest argument against 'td' that I > >ever > >heard. I saw more or less reasonable argumentation > >- that using less arguments make one more register for argument passing > > (amd64 has 6 input arg regs), > >- that less arguments make smaller call code. > >But trust me, in all cases where function can take td !=3D curthread, it > >is > >either obvious or well-known for anybody who works with that code. > > > >Before you start doing a lot of small changes (AKA continous churn) > >please formulate your goals and get some public feedback. My immediate > >question that I want answered before you ever start touching the code, > >is what you plan to do with > > sys_syscall(struct thread *td, uap) > > Agreed on all points. At the very least this group of commits should be r= eviewed on phabricator. It has been, even though they are pretty much mechanical changes. > Can we back all these commits out until there is a proper review, please? The review from the NFS maintainer is not enough?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAFLM3-pFi_-yhMx4bhm_0S5FK3BdLh1xbXV%2BcKgPks7d8cttMw>