On Fri, Jan 14, 2022 at 04:47:50PM +0100, Md Haris Iqbal wrote:
> -/**
> - * list_next_or_null_rr_rcu - get next list element in round-robin fashion.
> - * @head: the head for the list.
> - * @ptr: the list head to take the next element from.
> - * @type: the type of the struct this is embedded in.
> - * @memb: the name of the list_head within the struct.
> - *
> - * Next element returned in round-robin fashion, i.e. head will be skipped,
> - * but if list is observed as empty, NULL will be returned.
> - *
> - * This primitive may safely run concurrently with the _rcu list-mutation
> - * primitives such as list_add_rcu() as long as it's guarded by rcu_read_lock().
> - */
> -#define list_next_or_null_rr_rcu(head, ptr, type, memb) \
> -({ \
> - list_next_or_null_rcu(head, ptr, type, memb) ?: \
> - list_next_or_null_rcu(head, READ_ONCE((ptr)->next), \
> - type, memb); \
> -})
Why not put this in a static inline instead of open coding it? Type is
always the same for both usages, right?
Jason
