[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171004224612.GF13815@linux-80c1.suse>
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2017 15:46:12 -0700
From: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
To: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
Cc: Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>,
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...chiereds.net>,
"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Dave Chinner <dchinner@...hat.com>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 6/6] lib/dlock-list: Provide IRQ-safe APIs
On Wed, 04 Oct 2017, Waiman Long wrote:
>To enable the use of dlock-list in an interrupt handler, the following
>new APIs are provided for a irqsafe dlock-list:
>
> - void dlock_list_unlock_irqsafe(struct dlock_list_iter *)
> - void dlock_list_relock_irqsafe(struct dlock_list_iter *)
> - void dlock_list_add_irqsafe(struct dlock_list_node *,
> struct dlock_list_head *);
> - void dlock_lists_add_irqsafe(struct dlock_list_node *,
> struct dlock_list_heads *)
> - void dlock_lists_del_irqsafe(struct dlock_list_node *)
>
>New macros for irqsafe dlock-list:
>
> - dlist_for_each_entry_irqsafe(pos, iter, member)
> - dlist_for_each_entry_safe_irqsafe(pos, n, iter, member)
Instead of adding more calls to the api, could we not just use the
irqsave/restore as part of the regular api?
Thanks,
Davidlohr
Powered by blists - more mailing lists