Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 20:01:50 +1000 (EST) From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> To: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> Cc: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.ORG>, <arch@FreeBSD.ORG>, Alfred Perlstein <bright@mu.org> Subject: Re: Process/thread states. Message-ID: <20020904194643.H914-100000@gamplex.bde.org> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0209032347000.26122-100000@InterJet.elischer.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, Julian Elischer wrote: > On Wed, 4 Sep 2002, Bruce Evans wrote: > > > On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, Julian Elischer wrote: > > [... thread classification macros] > > Just don't forget to change it back to a simple test once you have debugged > > and optimized it :-). One virtue of inline code is that it inhibits expansion > > of huge macros to huger ones. > Do you mean edit it again and remove all the macros later? Yes, if you can get the state checks back to be simple ones (which is a reasonable goal for both efficiency and simplicity). > There is a certain readbility that comes with a concise macro name > that is not present (from the point of view of the lay reader) > in the more crude direct tests. > > If (TD_ON_SLEEPQ(td) && TD_IS_RUNNING(td)) > is presently expressed as: > > if ((td->td_wchan != 0) && td->td_state == TDS_RUNNING) > > I know which of those two I'd rather see if I was a new developer trying > to work out what the heck is going on.. I'd rather see (td->td_state == TDS_RUNNING). Only very lay readers don't want to know anything about the details hidden by the macro. Bruce To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020904194643.H914-100000>