On 07/19/2016 01:00 AM, Al Viro wrote:
On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 01:39:40PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
+struct dlock_list_head_percpu {
+ struct list_head list;
+ spinlock_t lock;
+};
+#define DLOCK_LIST_HEAD_PERCPU_INIT(name) \
+ { \
+ .list.prev =&name.list, \
+ .list.next =&name.list, \
+ .list.lock = __SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED(name), \
What's .list.lock and how does that even compile?
Yes, it is a typo. This macro is not used. That is why there is no
compilation error. I will remove it from the patch.
+extern bool dlock_list_next(struct dlock_list_head *dlist,
+ struct dlock_list_iter *iter);
Ugh... Why not dlist_for_each_entry(), seeing that all users end up with
the same boilerplate?
Right, I could make a dlock_list_for_each_entry() that encapsulate the
boilerplate. I will work on that.
Thanks,
Longman
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
