[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFzL+0wDKev7ZWWMZVfr5ofcX=1qyCFkwMehC4ti0=C0CQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2015 09:31:16 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
David Woodhouse <David.Woodhouse@...el.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 6/9] rbtree: Implement generic latch_tree
On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 5:13 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> struct latch_tree_node {
> + struct rb_node node[2];
> };
>
> +static __always_inline struct latch_tree_node *
> +__lt_from_rb(struct rb_node *node, int idx)
> +{
> + return container_of(node, struct latch_tree_node, node[idx]);
> +}
Ugh. That syntax of offset_of() worries me a bit, but some grepping
shows that we already use this form of offset_of() in parts of the
kernel, so I guess it's fine.
Even with that small "Ugh", I do have to admit to preferring this to
having the back-pointer.
Linus
--
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