linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sched: Enhance readability of iterating wake

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: <20170210095538.GD16086@X58A-UD3R>
Date:   Fri, 10 Feb 2017 18:55:39 +0900
From:   Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     mingo@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: Enhance readability of iterating wake_list

On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 08:55:23AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 01:09:31PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> > +#define for_each_wake_list(task, node) \
> > +	for ((task) = llist_entry((node), struct task_struct, wake_entry); \
> > +	     node; (node) = llist_next(node), \
> > +	     (task) = llist_entry((node), struct task_struct, wake_entry))
> > +
> 
> How about you make that llist_for_each(pos, member) or similar and
> replace all while (foo) { foo = llist_next(foo); } instances?
> 
> Because most llist_next() users have the same pattern.

Yes, it would be better. I will do it.

Thank you.