lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Mar]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectQ: (stupid) can't we "fix" hlist_for_each_entry() ?
    hlist_for_each_entry/hlist_for_each_entry_rcu doesn't actually need 4
    arguments, it could be

    #define hlist_for_each_entry_rcu(pos, head, member) \
    for (pos = hlist_entry((head)->first, typeof(*(pos)), member); \
    rcu_dereference(pos) != hlist_entry(NULL, typeof(*(pos)), member) && \
    ({ prefetch((pos)->member.next); 1; }); \
    (pos) = hlist_entry((pos)->member.next, typeof(*(pos)), member))

    Or,

    #define hlist_for_each_entry_rcu(pos, head, member) \
    for (pos = (void*)(head)->first; \
    rcu_dereference(pos) && ({ prefetch(((hlist_node*)pos)->next); 1; }) && \
    ({ (pos) = hlist_entry((void*)(pos), typeof(*(pos)), member)); 1; }); \
    (pos) = (void*)(pos)->member.next)

    Q: is it worth "fixing" ?

    If yes, what is the "right" way to do this? These macros are spread all over
    the kernel...

    Oleg.



    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2008-03-12 09:15    [W:0.018 / U:21.044 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site