Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Wed, 12 Jan 2022 20:16:38 +0200 (EET)
From:   =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Ilpo_J=E4rvinen?= <ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
cc:     "Martinez, Ricardo" <ricardo.martinez@linux.intel.com>,
        Netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org,
        kuba@kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net, johannes@sipsolutions.net,
        ryazanov.s.a@gmail.com, loic.poulain@linaro.org,
        m.chetan.kumar@intel.com, chandrashekar.devegowda@intel.com,
        linuxwwan@intel.com, chiranjeevi.rapolu@linux.intel.com,
        haijun.liu@mediatek.com, amir.hanania@intel.com,
        dinesh.sharma@intel.com, eliot.lee@intel.com,
        mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com, moises.veleta@intel.com,
        pierre-louis.bossart@intel.com, muralidharan.sethuraman@intel.com,
        Soumya.Prakash.Mishra@intel.com, sreehari.kancharla@intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 01/12] net: wwan: t7xx: Add control DMA
 interface
In-Reply-To: <Yd7/se+LD1c1wiBA@smile.fi.intel.com>
Message-ID: <b638aa4-5a1c-e6ad-5a85-d4c3298c4daf@linux.intel.com>
References: <20211207024711.2765-1-ricardo.martinez@linux.intel.com> <20211207024711.2765-2-ricardo.martinez@linux.intel.com> <a6325ef-e06e-c236-9d23-42fdb8b62747@linux.intel.com> <2b21bfa5-4b18-d615-b6ab-09ad97d73fe4@linux.intel.com> <Yd6+GjPLP2qCCEfv@smile.fi.intel.com>
 <b0cb18b-dc7b-9241-b21a-850d055d86@linux.intel.com> <Yd7/se+LD1c1wiBA@smile.fi.intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="8323329-909957258-1642011406=:1851"
Precedence: bulk

  This message is in MIME format.  The first part should be readable text,
  while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools.

--8323329-909957258-1642011406=:1851
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT

On Wed, 12 Jan 2022, Andy Shevchenko wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 04:24:52PM +0200, Ilpo J?rvinen wrote:
> > On Wed, 12 Jan 2022, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jan 11, 2022 at 08:55:58PM -0800, Martinez, Ricardo wrote:
> > > > On 12/16/2021 3:08 AM, Ilpo J?rvinen wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, 6 Dec 2021, Ricardo Martinez wrote:
> > > 
> > > > > > +	if (req->entry.next == &ring->gpd_ring)
> > > > > > +		return list_first_entry(&ring->gpd_ring, struct cldma_request, entry);
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +	return list_next_entry(req, entry);
> > > 
> > > ...
> > > 
> > > > > > +	if (req->entry.prev == &ring->gpd_ring)
> > > > > > +		return list_last_entry(&ring->gpd_ring, struct cldma_request, entry);
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +	return list_prev_entry(req, entry);
> > > 
> > > ...
> > > 
> > > > > Wouldn't these two seems generic enough to warrant adding something like
> > > > > list_next/prev_entry_circular(...) to list.h?
> > > > 
> > > > Agree, in the upcoming version I'm planning to include something like this
> > > > to list.h as suggested:
> > > 
> > > I think you mean for next and prev, i.o.w. two helpers, correct?
> > > 
> > > > #define list_next_entry_circular(pos, ptr, member) \

One thing I missed earlier, the sigrature should instead of ptr have head:
#define list_next_entry_circular(pos, head, member)

> > > > ?? ?((pos)->member.next == (ptr) ? \
> > > 
> > > I believe this is list_entry_is_head().
> > 
> > It takes .next so it's not the same as list_entry_is_head() and 
> > list_entry_is_last() doesn't exist.
> 
> But we have list_last_entry(). So, what about
> 
> list_last_entry() == pos ? first : next;
> 
> and counterpart
> 
> list_first_entry() == pos ? last : prev;
> 
> ?

Yes, although now that I think it more, using them implies the head 
element has to be always accessed. It might be marginally cache friendlier 
to use list_entry_is_head you originally suggested but get the next entry 
first:
({
	typeof(pos) next__ = list_next_entry(pos, member); \
	!list_entry_is_head(next__, head, member) ? next__ : list_next_entry(next__, member);
})
(This was written directly to email, entirely untested).

Here, the head element would only get accessed when we really need to walk 
through it.

> > > > ?? ?list_first_entry(ptr, typeof(*(pos)), member) : \
> > > > ?? ?list_next_entry(pos, member))

-- 
 i.

--8323329-909957258-1642011406=:1851--