Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 14 Apr 2006 00:21:04 +0400 | From | Oleg Nesterov <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] pids: simplify do_each_task_pid/while_each_task_pid |
| |
On 04/13, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 09:54:31PM +0400, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > > > > > #define for_each_task_pid(task, pid, type, pos) \ > > > hlist_for_each_entry_rcu((task), (pos), \ > > > (&(pid))->tasks[type], pids[type].node) { > > > > > > and move the find_pid to the caller? That would make the code a whole lot > > > more readable. > > > > Then the caller should check find_pid() doesn't return NULL. But yes, > > we can hide this check inside for_each_task_pid(). > > > > But what about current users of do_each_task_pid ? We can't just remove > > these macros. > > They'd have to switch over to the new variant. There's just 18 callers > ayway, currently, and with a patch like the one below that number firther > decreases :)
Ok, In such a case we should first
#define NEW_IMPROVED_HLIST_FOR_EACH_ENTRY_RCU_WHICH_DOESNT_NEED_EXTRA_PARM(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))
What do you think? What should be the name for it?
Oleg.
- 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/
| |