Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: Q: (stupid) can't we "fix" hlist_for_each_entry() ? | From | Peter Zijlstra <> | Date | Wed, 12 Mar 2008 10:48:50 +0100 |
| |
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.
| |