|From:||Linus Torvalds <torvalds-AT-linux-foundation.org>|
|To:||Tejun Heo <tj-AT-kernel.org>|
|Subject:||Re: [PATCH 5/6] workqueue: introduce NR_WORKER_POOLS and for_each_worker_pool()|
|Date:||Fri, 13 Jul 2012 22:00:10 -0700|
|Cc:||linux-kernel-AT-vger.kernel.org, joshhunt00-AT-gmail.com, axboe-AT-kernel.dk, rni-AT-google.com, vgoyal-AT-redhat.com, vwadekar-AT-nvidia.com, herbert-AT-gondor.apana.org.au, davem-AT-davemloft.net, linux-crypto-AT-vger.kernel.org, swhiteho-AT-redhat.com, bpm-AT-sgi.com, elder-AT-kernel.org, xfs-AT-oss.sgi.com, marcel-AT-holtmann.org, gustavo-AT-padovan.org, johan.hedberg-AT-gmail.com, linux-bluetooth-AT-vger.kernel.org, martin.petersen-AT-oracle.com|
On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 9:44 PM, Tejun Heo <email@example.com> wrote: > > nr_running is atomic_t (*nr_running). Ignoring the pointer to > array part, it's just returning the address of N'th element of the > array. ARRAY + N == &ARRAY[N]. None of this matters one whit. You did "&(x)". That's insane. It's crazy. It doesn't even matter what "x" is in between, it's crazy regardless. It's just a really confused way of saying "x" (*). Except it makes the code look like an insane monkey on crack got a-hold of your keyboard when you weren't looking. And to make it worse, "x" itself was the result of doing "*&y". Which was probably written by the insane monkey's older brother, Max, who has been chewing Quaaludes for a few years, and as a result _his_ brain really isn't doing too well either. Even for a monkey. And now you're letting *him* at your keyboard too? So you had two separately (but similarly) insane ways of complicating the code so that it was really obfuscated. When it really just computed "y" to begin with, it just added all those "x=*&y" and "&(x)" games around it to make it look complicated. Linus (*) Technically, "&(x)" is actually a really confused way of saying "(x+0)" while making sure that "x" was a valid pointer. It basically guarantees that if "x" started out as an array, it has now been demoted to a pointer - but since arrays will be demoted to pointers by pretty much any subsequent operation except for "sizeof()" and a couple of other special cases anyway, you can pretty much just say that "&(x)" is "(x+0)" is "x". And "*&y" really is exactly the same as "y", except for again some syntactic checking (ie it is basically an odd way to verify that "y" is an lvalue, since you cannot do an address-of of a non-lvalue).
Copyright © 2012, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds