On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 01:38:33PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 04/12/2016 10:09 PM, Boqun Feng wrote:
> > Hi Waiman,
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 06:54:43PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> > [...]
> > > +
> > > +/*
> > > + * Initialize the per-cpu list head
> > > + */
> > > +int init_pcpu_list_head(struct pcpu_list_head **ppcpu_head)
> > > +{
> > > + struct pcpu_list_head *pcpu_head = alloc_percpu(struct pcpu_list_head);
> > > + int cpu;
> > > +
> > > + if (!pcpu_head)
> > > + return -ENOMEM;
> > > +
> > > + for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
> > > + struct pcpu_list_head *head = per_cpu_ptr(pcpu_head, cpu);
> > > +
> > > + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&head->list);
> > > + head->lock = __SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED(&head->lock);
> > > + lockdep_set_class(&head->lock,&percpu_list_key);
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + *ppcpu_head = pcpu_head;
> > > + return 0;
> > > +}
> > The first time I looked at this patch, I had a hard time to figure out
> > which "struct pcpu_list_head" pointer is pointing to percpu data(the
> > pointer could be the parameter for per/this_cpu_ptr()), and which
> > pointer is pointing to actual structure. For example, 'pcpu_head' and
> > 'head' above are different types of pointers.
> >
> > So besides improving my code reading skills, I think the following patch
> > helps ;-) Also it can resolve several splats of sparse when running
> > 'make C=1 lib/'.
> >
> > Thoughts?
>
> Yes, I think your patch is helpful. I will include your patch in my
> patchset.
>
Given that a renaming will happen in the next version, carrying this as
a standalone patch will be a pain, I think. So feel free to squash this
into the patch #1, if that could make your job eariser ;-)
Regards,
Boqun
> Thanks,
> Longman
>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
