lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Mar]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: Q: (stupid) can't we "fix" hlist_for_each_entry() ?
From
Date
On Wed, 2008-03-12 at 11:12 +0300, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> 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" ?

I'm in favour.

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

The usual way would be to prepare a git tree for Linus to pull right
after -rc1 I think was the best point, and at the same time supply
Andrew with a bunch of patches fixing up the various users in his tree.



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-03-12 10:53    [W:0.064 / U:0.140 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site