[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <50462EE8.1090903@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2012 17:40:08 +0100
From: Pedro Alves <palves@...hat.com>
To: unlisted-recipients:; (no To-header on input)
CC: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@...il.com>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, paul.gortmaker@...driver.com,
davem@...emloft.net, mingo@...e.hu, ebiederm@...ssion.com,
aarcange@...hat.com, ericvh@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
josh@...htriplett.org, eric.dumazet@...il.com, axboe@...nel.dk,
agk@...hat.com, dm-devel@...hat.com, neilb@...e.de,
ccaulfie@...hat.com, teigland@...hat.com,
Trond.Myklebust@...app.com, bfields@...ldses.org,
fweisbec@...il.com, jesse@...ira.com,
venkat.x.venkatsubra@...cle.com, ejt@...hat.com,
snitzer@...hat.com, edumazet@...gle.com, linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org,
dev@...nvswitch.org, rds-devel@....oracle.com, lw@...fujitsu.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 01/17] hashtable: introduce a small and naive hashtable
On 09/04/2012 05:30 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:
> On 09/04/2012 04:35 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>> On Tue, 2012-08-28 at 19:00 -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>>
>>> Looking again at:
>>>
>>> +#define hash_for_each_size(name, bits, bkt, node, obj, member) \
>>> + for (bkt = 0; bkt < HASH_SIZE(bits); bkt++) \
>>> + hlist_for_each_entry(obj, node, &name[bkt], member)
>>>
>>> you will notice that a "break" or "continue" in the inner loop will not
>>> affect the outer loop, which is certainly not what the programmer would
>>> expect!
>>>
>>> I advise strongly against creating such error-prone construct.
>>>
>>
>> A few existing loop macros do this. But they require a do { } while ()
>> approach, and all have a comment.
>>
>> It's used by do_each_thread() in sched.h and ftrace does this as well.
>> Look at kernel/trace/ftrace.c at do_for_each_ftrace_rec().
>>
>> Yes it breaks 'break' but it does not break 'continue' as it would just
>> go to the next item that would have been found (like a normal for
>> would).
>
> /*
> * This is a double for. Do not use 'break' to break out of the loop,
> * you must use a goto.
> */
> #define do_for_each_ftrace_rec(pg, rec) \
> for (pg = ftrace_pages_start; pg; pg = pg->next) { \
> int _____i; \
> for (_____i = 0; _____i < pg->index; _____i++) { \
> rec = &pg->records[_____i];
>
>
>
> You can make 'break' also work as expected if you can embed a little knowledge
> of the inner loop's condition in the outer loop's condition. Sometimes it's
> trivial, most often when the inner loop's iterator is a pointer that goes
> NULL at the end, but other times not so much. Something like (completely untested):
>
> #define do_for_each_ftrace_rec(pg, rec) \
> for (pg = ftrace_pages_start, rec = &pg->records[pg->index]; \
> pg && rec == &pg->records[pg->index]; \
> pg = pg->next) { \
> int _____i; \
> for (_____i = 0; _____i < pg->index; _____i++) { \
> rec = &pg->records[_____i];
>
>
> (other variants possible)
>
> IOW, the outer loop only iterates if the inner loop completes. If there's
> a break in the inner loop, then the outer loop breaks too. Of course, it
> all depends on whether the generated code looks sane or hideous, if
> the uses of the macro care for it over bug avoidance.
>
BTW, you can also go a step further and remove the need to close with double }},
with something like:
#define do_for_each_ftrace_rec(pg, rec) \
for (pg = ftrace_pages_start, rec = &pg->records[pg->index]; \
pg && rec == &pg->records[pg->index]; \
pg = pg->next) \
for (rec = pg->records; rec < &pg->records[pg->index]; rec++)
--
Pedro Alves
--
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