Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 10 Mar 2013 05:38:44 -0700 | From | Tejun Heo <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 12/31] workqueue: update synchronization rules on workqueue->pwqs |
| |
Hello, Lai.
On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 06:09:28PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote: > > #define for_each_pwq(pwq, wq) \ > > - list_for_each_entry((pwq), &(wq)->pwqs, pwqs_node) > > + list_for_each_entry_rcu((pwq), &(wq)->pwqs, pwqs_node) \ > > + if (({ assert_rcu_or_wq_lock(); true; })) > > Aware this: > > if (somecondition) > for_each_pwq(pwq, wq) > one_statement;q > else > xxxxx; > > > for_each_pwq() will eat the else.
Yeah, but that will also generate a compiler warning.
> To avoid this, you can use: > > #define for_each_pwq(pwq, wq) \ > list_for_each_entry_rcu((pwq), &(wq)->pwqs, pwqs_node) \ > if (({ assert_rcu_or_wq_lock(); false; })) { } \ > else > > > The same for for_each_pool() in later patch.
Ooh, yeah, that's better. Will do that.
Thanks.
-- tejun
| |