lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Apr]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH 4/5] RCU: Add TASK_RCU_OFFSET
    On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 04:31:10PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
    > On 04/11/2011 01:12 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
    >
    > > -static inline struct task_struct *next_thread(const struct task_struct *p)
    > > -{
    > > - return list_entry_rcu(p->thread_group.next,
    > > - struct task_struct, thread_group);
    > > -}
    > > +/* Avoid #include hell for inlining rcu_read_lock(). */
    > > +#define next_thread(p) \
    > > + list_entry_rcu((p)->thread_group.next, struct task_struct, thread_group)
    > >
    >
    >
    > It is strange for me.
    > The user of the API "next_thread(p)" must has two headers included, sched.h and rculist.h
    >
    > I know this is a very popular pattern of user space code, is it OK for kernel?
    > I think a file(even a header file) uses API(Marco), it should includes the the corresponding
    > headers, it reduces surprises(example, the name of "next_thread()" has no "rcu",
    > it is not expected that rcuxxxx.h is required).
    >
    > I admit the work will become very much simpler if this pattern is allowed.

    The guy who maintains much of sched.h suggested it. ;-)

    Thanx, Paul

    > man fcntl:
    > #include <unistd.h>
    > #include <fcntl.h>
    >
    > int fcntl(int fd, int cmd, ... /* arg */ );
    > --
    > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2011-04-11 23:05    [W:0.021 / U:60.112 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site