linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] rcu: introduce list_last_or_null

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20150528211731.GP5989@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Thu, 28 May 2015 14:17:31 -0700
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Dan Streetman <ddstreet@...e.org>
Cc:	Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
	Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] rcu: introduce list_last_or_null_rcu

On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 05:14:25PM -0400, Dan Streetman wrote:
> On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 5:05 PM, Paul E. McKenney
> <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 04:42:20PM -0400, Dan Streetman wrote:
> >> On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 4:39 PM,  <josh@...htriplett.org> wrote:
> >> > On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 04:35:27PM -0400, Dan Streetman wrote:
> >> >> Add list_last_or_null_rcu(), to simplify getting the last entry from a
> >> >> rcu-protected list.  The standard list_last_entry() can't be used as it
> >> >> is not rcu-protected; the list may be modified concurrently.  And the
> >> >> ->prev pointer can't be used, as only the ->next pointers are protected
> >> >> by rcu.
> >> >>
> >> >> This simply iterates forward through the entire list, to get to the last
> >> >> entry.  If the list is empty, it returns NULL.
> >> >>
> >> >> Signed-off-by: Dan Streetman <ddstreet@...e.org>
> >> >
> >> > The list iteration functions are macros because they introduce a loop
> >> > with attached loop block.  For this, is there any reason not to make it
> >> > an inline function instead of a macro?
> >>
> >> true, there's no reason i can see not to make it inline, let me send
> >> an updated patch.
> >
> > Hmmm...  If we can now do type-generic inline functions, it might make
> > sense to convert some of the others as well.
> 
> oh, ok.  how do we do type-generic inline funcs?  return void*?

I was hoping that you would tell me.  I use macros in that case.

							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/