[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080312081201.GA278@tv-sign.ru>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 11:12:01 +0300
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Q: (stupid) can't we "fix" hlist_for_each_entry() ?
hlist_for_each_entry/hlist_for_each_entry_rcu doesn't actually need 4
arguments, it could be
#define hlist_for_each_entry_rcu(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))
Or,
#define hlist_for_each_entry_rcu(pos, head, member) \
for (pos = (void*)(head)->first; \
rcu_dereference(pos) && ({ prefetch(((hlist_node*)pos)->next); 1; }) && \
({ (pos) = hlist_entry((void*)(pos), typeof(*(pos)), member)); 1; }); \
(pos) = (void*)(pos)->member.next)
Q: is it worth "fixing" ?
If yes, what is the "right" way to do this? These macros are spread all over
the kernel...
Oleg.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists