From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail-by2nam03on0105.outbound.protection.outlook.com ([104.47.42.105]:14982
	"EHLO NAM03-BY2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1751207AbcGSTBn (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 19 Jul 2016 15:01:43 -0400
Message-ID: <578E790A.6090403@hpe.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2016 15:01:30 -0400
From: Waiman Long <waiman.long@hpe.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
CC: Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>, Jeff Layton <jlayton@poochiereds.net>,
	"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>,
	Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@linux-foundation.org>,
	<linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>,
	Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>,
	Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
	Scott J Norton <scott.norton@hpe.com>,
	Douglas Hatch <doug.hatch@hpe.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/4] lib/dlock-list: Distributed and lock-protected
 lists
References: <1468604383-40362-1-git-send-email-Waiman.Long@hpe.com> <1468604383-40362-2-git-send-email-Waiman.Long@hpe.com> <20160719050032.GE2356@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
In-Reply-To: <20160719050032.GE2356@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org>

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