From owner-freebsd-arch  Wed Sep  4  2:54:38 2002
Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 3E1F637B400; Wed,  4 Sep 2002 02:54:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailman.zeta.org.au (mailman.zeta.org.au [203.26.10.16])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 1F89643E65; Wed,  4 Sep 2002 02:54:35 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from bde@zeta.org.au)
Received: from bde.zeta.org.au (bde.zeta.org.au [203.2.228.102])
	by mailman.zeta.org.au (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA14464;
	Wed, 4 Sep 2002 09:54:28 GMT
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 20:01:50 +1000 (EST)
From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>
X-X-Sender: bde@gamplex.bde.org
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.
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0209032347000.26122-100000@InterJet.elischer.org>
Message-ID: <20020904194643.H914-100000@gamplex.bde.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <freebsd-arch.FreeBSD.ORG>
List-Archive: <http://docs.freebsd.org/mail/> (Web Archive)
List-Help: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=help> (List Instructions)
List-Subscribe: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=subscribe%20freebsd-arch>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=unsubscribe%20freebsd-arch>
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

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