lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [May]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/2] rcu: introduce list_last_or_null_rcu
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 04:44:59PM -0400, Dan Streetman wrote:
> On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 4:42 PM, Dan Streetman <ddstreet@ieee.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 4:39 PM, <josh@joshtriplett.org> wrote:
> >> On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 04:35:27PM -0400, Dan Streetman wrote:
> >>> Add list_last_or_null_rcu(), to simplify getting the last entry from a
> >>> rcu-protected list. The standard list_last_entry() can't be used as it
> >>> is not rcu-protected; the list may be modified concurrently. And the
> >>> ->prev pointer can't be used, as only the ->next pointers are protected
> >>> by rcu.
> >>>
> >>> This simply iterates forward through the entire list, to get to the last
> >>> entry. If the list is empty, it returns NULL.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Dan Streetman <ddstreet@ieee.org>
> >>
> >> The list iteration functions are macros because they introduce a loop
> >> with attached loop block. For this, is there any reason not to make it
> >> an inline function instead of a macro?
> >
> > true, there's no reason i can see not to make it inline, let me send
> > an updated patch.
>
> ha, as soon as i sent that email, i realized it can't be an inline
> function, because the return value is (type *), not a predefined
> value. Of course it could return void*, but unless there's a benefit
> of making it an inline function, it seems to me like it would be
> better as a #define.

Fair enough. Sigh, C.

- Josh Triplett


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-05-28 23:21    [W:0.265 / U:0.824 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site