lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Jul]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 1/4] lib/dlock-list: Distributed and lock-protected lists
On 07/19/2016 03:23 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 02:42:31PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
>>>> +int alloc_dlock_list_head(struct dlock_list_head *dlist)
>>>> +{
>>>> + struct dlock_list_head dlist_tmp;
>>>> + int cpu;
>>>> +
>>>> + dlist_tmp.head = alloc_percpu(struct dlock_list_head_percpu);
>>>> + if (!dlist_tmp.head)
>>>> + return -ENOMEM;
>>>> +
>>>> + for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
>>>> + struct dlock_list_head_percpu *head;
>>>> +
>>>> + head = per_cpu_ptr(dlist_tmp.head, cpu);
>>>> + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&head->list);
>>>> + head->lock = __SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED(&head->lock);
>>>> + lockdep_set_class(&head->lock,&dlock_list_key);
>>>> + }
>>>> +
>>>> + dlist->head = dlist_tmp.head;
>>> Just use dlist->head directly or use local __perpcu head pointer?
>> I just don't want to expose the structure to world until it is fully
>> initialized. If you think I am over-cautious, I can use dlist->head as
>> suggested.
> I don't think it makes any actual difference. No strong opinion
> either way. Just use local __percpu head pointer then?

I have run sparse on dlock_list.c. There is no need to use the __percpu
tag here. The head gets assigned the result of per_cpu_ptr() which has
no __percpu annotation. I actually got sparse warning if I used the
__percpu tag.

Cheers,
Longman


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-07-21 00:41    [W:0.109 / U:0.144 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site