[PATCH 10/15] EDAC: edac_mc_add_mc() fix [1/2]

[PATCH 10/15] EDAC: edac_mc_add_mc() fix [1/2]

[Dave Peterson]

This is part 1 of a 2-part patch set.  The code changes are split into
two parts to make the patches more readable.

Move complete_mc_list_del() and del_mc_from_global_list() so we can
call del_mc_from_global_list() from edac_mc_add_mc() without forward
declarations.  Perhaps using forward declarations would be better?
I'm doing things this way because the rest of the code is missing
them.

Signed-Off-By: David S. Peterson <dsp@llnl.gov> <dave_peterson@pobox.com>
---

Index: linux-2.6.16-rc5-edac/drivers/edac/edac_mc.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.16-rc5-edac.orig/drivers/edac/edac_mc.c	2006-02-27 17:05:48.000000000 -0800
+++ linux-2.6.16-rc5-edac/drivers/edac/edac_mc.c	2006-02-27 17:06:17.000000000 -0800
@@ -1405,6 +1405,24 @@ static int add_mc_to_global_list (struct
 }
 
 
+static void complete_mc_list_del (struct rcu_head *head)
+{
+	struct mem_ctl_info *mci;
+
+	mci = container_of(head, struct mem_ctl_info, rcu);
+	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&mci->link);
+	complete(&mci->complete);
+}
+
+
+static void del_mc_from_global_list (struct mem_ctl_info *mci)
+{
+	list_del_rcu(&mci->link);
+	init_completion(&mci->complete);
+	call_rcu(&mci->rcu, complete_mc_list_del);
+	wait_for_completion(&mci->complete);
+}
+
 
 EXPORT_SYMBOL(edac_mc_add_mc);
 
@@ -1466,24 +1484,6 @@ finish:
 }
 
 
-
-static void complete_mc_list_del (struct rcu_head *head)
-{
-	struct mem_ctl_info *mci;
-
-	mci = container_of(head, struct mem_ctl_info, rcu);
-	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&mci->link);
-	complete(&mci->complete);
-}
-
-static void del_mc_from_global_list (struct mem_ctl_info *mci)
-{
-	list_del_rcu(&mci->link);
-	init_completion(&mci->complete);
-	call_rcu(&mci->rcu, complete_mc_list_del);
-	wait_for_completion(&mci->complete);
-}
-
 EXPORT_SYMBOL(edac_mc_del_mc);
 
 /**

Re: [PATCH 10/15] EDAC: edac_mc_add_mc() fix [1/2]

[Andrew Morton]

Dave Peterson <dsp@llnl.gov> wrote:
>
>  This is part 1 of a 2-part patch set.  The code changes are split into
>  two parts to make the patches more readable.

Will the code compile and run with just #1-of-2 applied?

If not, we should combine the patches (which I can do in a jiffy).  Because
hitting a won't-compile in the middle of a git-bisect session is quite
painful.

Similarly we should aim for compiles-and-works at each step of the whole
series, if possible/sane.

>  Move complete_mc_list_del() and del_mc_from_global_list() so we can
>  call del_mc_from_global_list() from edac_mc_add_mc() without forward
>  declarations.  Perhaps using forward declarations would be better?
>  I'm doing things this way because the rest of the code is missing
>  them.

Well I prefer it the way you've done it in this patch.  But my first
language was Pascal ;)  (yes, they had computers then)

Re: [PATCH 10/15] EDAC: edac_mc_add_mc() fix [1/2]

[Dave Peterson]

On Thursday 02 March 2006 18:31, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Dave Peterson <dsp@llnl.gov> wrote:
> >  This is part 1 of a 2-part patch set.  The code changes are split into
> >  two parts to make the patches more readable.
>
> Will the code compile and run with just #1-of-2 applied?

It should compile.  Assuming that it does, would it still have been
preferable to just combine the two into a single patch?

Re: [PATCH 10/15] EDAC: edac_mc_add_mc() fix [1/2]

[Andrew Morton]

Dave Peterson <dsp@llnl.gov> wrote:
>
> On Thursday 02 March 2006 18:31, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Dave Peterson <dsp@llnl.gov> wrote:
> > >  This is part 1 of a 2-part patch set.  The code changes are split into
> > >  two parts to make the patches more readable.
> >
> > Will the code compile and run with just #1-of-2 applied?
> 
> It should compile.  Assuming that it does, would it still have been
> preferable to just combine the two into a single patch?

It's better as you had it.  First patch moves the functions without
changing them, the second patch changes them.  The mantra is "one concept
per patch".