[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080312125348.GA1487@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 05:53:48 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Q: (stupid) can't we "fix" hlist_for_each_entry() ?
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 11:12:01AM +0300, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> 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" ?
I have already come out in favor: http://lwn.net/Articles/262464/
answer to Quick Quiz 3. ;-)
The first option above looks more straightforward to me.
> If yes, what is the "right" way to do this? These macros are spread all over
> the kernel...
Peter's approach looked reasonable to me.
Thanx, Paul
--
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