On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 03:05:10PM +0800, Dave Young wrote: > On Jan 8, 2008 1:20 AM, Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 06:13:37PM +0100, Stefan Richter wrote: > > > It's already in the driver core to the most part. It remains to be seen > > > what is less complicated in the end: Transparent mutex-protected list > > > accesses provided by driver core (requires the iterator), or all the > > > necessary locking done by the drivers themselves (requires some more > > > lock-taking but perhaps fewer lock instances overall in the drivers, and > > > respective redefinitions and documentation of the driver core API). > > > > I favor changing the driver core api and doing this kind of thing there. > > It keeps the drivers simpler and should hopefully make their lives > > easier. > > What about this? > > #define class_for_each_dev(pos, head, member) \ > for (mutex_lock(&(container_of(head, struct class, devices))->mutex), po > s = list_entry((head)->next, typeof(*pos), member); \ > prefetch(pos->member.next), &pos->member != (head) ? 1 : (mutex_unlock(& > (container_of(head, struct class, devices))->mutex), 0); \ > pos = list_entry(pos->member.next, typeof(*pos), member)) Eeek, just make the thing a function please, where you pass the iterator function in, like the driver core has (driver_for_each_device) thanks, greg k-h - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
