Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751807AbYCLIMk (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Mar 2008 04:12:40 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750924AbYCLIMa (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Mar 2008 04:12:30 -0400 Received: from x346.tv-sign.ru ([89.108.83.215]:58417 "EHLO mail.screens.ru" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750835AbYCLIM3 (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Mar 2008 04:12:29 -0400 Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 11:12:01 +0300 From: Oleg Nesterov To: Andrew Morton , Christoph Hellwig , "Paul E. McKenney" Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Q: (stupid) can't we "fix" hlist_for_each_entry() ? Message-ID: <20080312081201.GA278@tv-sign.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1090 Lines: 29 hlist_for_each_entry/hlist_for_each_entry_rcu doesn't actually need 4 arguments, it could be #define hlist_for_each_entry_rcu(pos, head, member) \ for (pos = hlist_entry((head)->first, typeof(*(pos)), member); \ rcu_dereference(pos) != hlist_entry(NULL, typeof(*(pos)), member) && \ ({ prefetch((pos)->member.next); 1; }); \ (pos) = hlist_entry((pos)->member.next, typeof(*(pos)), member)) Or, #define hlist_for_each_entry_rcu(pos, head, member) \ for (pos = (void*)(head)->first; \ rcu_dereference(pos) && ({ prefetch(((hlist_node*)pos)->next); 1; }) && \ ({ (pos) = hlist_entry((void*)(pos), typeof(*(pos)), member)); 1; }); \ (pos) = (void*)(pos)->member.next) Q: is it worth "fixing" ? If yes, what is the "right" way to do this? These macros are spread all over the kernel... Oleg. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/