On Tue, Aug 06, 2019 at 11:50:42AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> In fact, I do note that a lot of the users don't actually use the
> "void *private" argument at all - they just want the walker - and just
> pass in a NULL private pointer. So we have things like this:
>
> > + if (walk_page_range(&init_mm, va, va + size, &set_nocache_walk_ops,
> > + NULL)) {
>
> and in a perfect world we'd have arguments with default values so that
> we could skip those entirely for when people just don't need it.
>
> I'm not a huge fan of C++ because of a lot of the complexity (and some
> really bad decisions), but many of the _syntactic_ things in C++ would
> be nice to use. This one doesn't seem to be one that the gcc people
> have picked up as an extension ;(
>
> Yes, yes, we could do it with a macro, I guess.
>
> #define walk_page_range(mm, start,end, ops, ...) \
> __walk_page_range(mm, start, end, (NULL , ## __VA_ARGS__))
>
> but I'm not sure it's worthwhile.
Has anyone looked at turning the interface inside-out? ie something like:
struct mm_walk_state state = { .mm = mm, .start = start, .end = end, };
for_each_page_range(&state, page) {
... do something with page ...
}
with appropriate macrology along the lines of:
#define for_each_page_range(state, page) \
while ((page = page_range_walk_next(state)))
Then you don't need to package anything up into structs that are shared
between the caller and the iterated function.
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
