[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170228131012.GI5680@worktop>
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 14:10:12 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>
Cc: mingo@...nel.org, tglx@...utronix.de, walken@...gle.com,
boqun.feng@...il.com, kirill@...temov.name,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
iamjoonsoo.kim@....com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
npiggin@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 06/13] lockdep: Implement crossrelease feature
> +#ifdef CONFIG_LOCKDEP_CROSSRELEASE
> +
> +#define idx(t) ((t)->xhlock_idx)
> +#define idx_prev(i) ((i) ? (i) - 1 : MAX_XHLOCKS_NR - 1)
> +#define idx_next(i) (((i) + 1) % MAX_XHLOCKS_NR)
Note that:
#define idx_prev(i) (((i) - 1) % MAX_XHLOCKS_NR)
#define idx_next(i) (((i) + 1) % MAX_XHLOCKS_NR)
is more symmetric and easier to understand.
> +
> +/* For easy access to xhlock */
> +#define xhlock(t, i) ((t)->xhlocks + (i))
> +#define xhlock_prev(t, l) xhlock(t, idx_prev((l) - (t)->xhlocks))
> +#define xhlock_curr(t) xhlock(t, idx(t))
So these result in an xhlock pointer
> +#define xhlock_incr(t) ({idx(t) = idx_next(idx(t));})
This does not; which is confusing seeing how they share the same
namespace; also incr is weird.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists