Messages in this thread | | | From | Nick Piggin <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/5] lib: introduce call_once() | Date | Tue, 11 Mar 2008 15:10:52 +1100 |
| |
On Tuesday 11 March 2008 14:48, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 23:57:05 +0900 Akinobu Mita <akinobu.mita@gmail.com> wrote: > > call_once() is an utility function which has similar functionality of > > pthread_once(). > > > > +/* > > + * call_once - call the initialization function only once > > + * > > + * @once_control: guarantee that the init_routine will be called only > > once + * @init_routine: initialization function > > + * > > + * The first call to call_once(), with a given once_control, shall call > > the + * init_routine with no arguments and return the value init_routine > > returned. + * If the init_routine returns zero which indicates the > > initialization + * succeeded, subsequent calls of call_once() with the > > same once_control shall + * not call the init_routine and return zero. > > + */ > > + > > +static inline int call_once(struct once_control *once_control, > > + int (*init_rouine)(void)) > > +{ > > + return likely(once_control->done) ? 0 > > + : call_once_slow(once_control, init_rouine); > > +} > > I don't believe that this shold be described in terms of an "init_routine". > This mechanism can be used for things other than initialisation routines. > > It is spelled "routine", not "rouine". > > > Would it not be simpler and more general to do: > > #define ONCE() \ > ({ \ > static long flag; \ > \ > return !test_and_set_bit(0, flag); \ > }) > > and then callers can do > > if (ONCE()) > do_something(); > > ?
Isn't this usually going to be buggy if you have concurrent access here? I'd prefer to keep synchronisation details in the caller and not have this call_once at all.
| |