[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160112115843.GD6357@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 12:58:43 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com>
Cc: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
rjw@...ysocki.net, mturquette@...libre.com,
steve.muckle@...aro.org, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
morten.rasmussen@....com, dietmar.eggemann@....com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 04/19] cpufreq: bring data structures close to their
locks
On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 11:21:25AM +0000, Juri Lelli wrote:
> I tried to see if something like for_each_domain() can be done, but here
> we use list_for_each_entry() macro. Peter, do you mean something like
> the following?
>
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> index 78b1e2f..1a847a6 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> @@ -39,6 +39,7 @@
> static LIST_HEAD(cpufreq_governor_list);
> static DEFINE_MUTEX(cpufreq_governor_mutex);
> #define for_each_governor(__governor) \
> + lockdep_assert_held(&cpufreq_governor_mutex); \
> list_for_each_entry(__governor, &cpufreq_governor_list, governor_list)
That fails for things like:
if (blah)
for_each_governor(...) {
}
which looks like valid C -- even though our Coding Style says the if
should have { } on.
I was thinking of either open coding the for statement and adding it to
the first statement like:
#define for_each_governor(__g) \
for (_g = list_first_entry(&cpufreq_governor_list, typeof(*_g), governor_list, lockdep_assert_held(), \
..... )
Or use something like this:
lkml.kernel.org/r/20150422154212.GE3007@...ktop.Skamania.guest
#define for_each_governor(_g) \
list_for_each_entry(_g, &cpufreq_governor_list, governor_list)
if (lockdep_assert_held(..), false)
;
else
Which should preserve C syntax rules.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists