Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [RFC/PATCH 3/5] rt: plist_head_splice | From | Peter Zijlstra <> | Date | Tue, 23 Oct 2007 18:26:33 +0200 |
| |
On Tue, 2007-10-23 at 11:10 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > -- > On Tue, 23 Oct 2007, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > + > > +void plist_head_splice(struct plist_head *src, struct plist_head *dst) > > +{ > > + struct plist_node *src_iter_first, *src_iter_last, *dst_iter; > > + struct plist_node *tail = container_of(dst, struct plist_node, plist); > > + > > + dst_iter = next_prio(tail); > > + > > + while (!plist_head_empty(src) && dst_iter != tail) { > > + src_iter_first = plist_first(src); > > + > > + src_iter_last = next_prio(src_iter_first); > > + src_iter_last = prev_node(src_iter_last); > > + > > + WARN_ON(src_iter_first->prio != src_iter_last->prio); > > + WARN_ON(list_empty(&src_iter_first->plist.prio_list)); > > + > > + while (src_iter_first->prio > dst_iter->prio) { > > + dst_iter = next_prio(dst_iter); > > + if (dst_iter == tail) > > + goto tail; > > + } > > + > > + list_del_init(&src_iter_first->plist.prio_list); > > + > > + if (src_iter_first->prio < dst_iter->prio) { > > I may be confused here, but shouldn't we be linking the > src_iter_first->prio_list somewhere here? Doesn't all different prios need > to be in its separate prio_list? Otherwise two splices in a row can cause > the above WARN_ON (prio != prio). >
> > + list_add_tail(&src_iter_first->plist.node_list, > > + &dst_iter->plist.node_list);
Uhm, yeah, that was supposed the be prio_list indeed.
Thanks!
> > + } else if (src_iter_first->prio == dst_iter->prio) { > > + dst_iter = next_prio(dst_iter); > > + } else BUG(); > > + > > + list_splice2_tail(&src_iter_first->plist.node_list, > > + &src_iter_last->plist.node_list, > > + &dst_iter->plist.node_list); > > + } > > + > > +tail: > > + list_splice_tail_init(&src->prio_list, &dst->prio_list); > > + list_splice_tail_init(&src->node_list, &dst->node_list); > > +} > > > > -- > > > > > > [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |