From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: cluster-devel.redhat.com
Subject: [Cluster-devel] [PATCH 3/6] gfs2: simplify current_tail() via list_last_entry_or_null()
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 17:39:57 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20131115163957.GA28467@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5285A3F4.4040000@oracle.com>
On 11/15, Jeff Liu wrote:
>
> @@ -441,13 +441,9 @@ static unsigned int current_tail(struct gfs2_sbd *sdp)
>
> spin_lock(&sdp->sd_ail_lock);
>
> - if (list_empty(&sdp->sd_ail1_list)) {
> - tail = sdp->sd_log_head;
> - } else {
> - tr = list_entry(sdp->sd_ail1_list.prev, struct gfs2_trans,
> - tr_list);
> - tail = tr->tr_first;
> - }
> + tr = list_last_entry_or_null(&sdp->sd_ail1_list, struct gfs2_trans,
> + tr_list);
> + tail = tr ? tr->tr_first : sdp->sd_log_head;
>
Personally I agree with Steven. At least in this case
list_last_entry_or_null() doesn't really help to simplify the code.
But probably list_last_entry() makes sense in the "else" branch,
athough this is minor.
Off-topic. Not sure this really makes sense, but I was thinking about
list_get_first(pos, head, member) \
((pos) = list_first_entry(head, typeof(*pos), member))
and list_get_first() last of course. The obvious advantage is that
compared to
tr = list_last_entry(sdp->sd_ail1_list, struct gfs2_trans, tr_list);
above you do not need to type "struct gfs2_trans",
list_get_last(tr, sdp->sd_ail1_list, tr_list);
looks a bit better.
Oleg.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Jeff Liu <jeff.liu@oracle.com>
Cc: jfs-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net, jiri@resnulli.us,
gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
"xfs@oss.sgi.com" <xfs@oss.sgi.com>,
cluster-devel@redhat.com, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org,
akpm@linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] gfs2: simplify current_tail() via list_last_entry_or_null()
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 17:39:57 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20131115163957.GA28467@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5285A3F4.4040000@oracle.com>
On 11/15, Jeff Liu wrote:
>
> @@ -441,13 +441,9 @@ static unsigned int current_tail(struct gfs2_sbd *sdp)
>
> spin_lock(&sdp->sd_ail_lock);
>
> - if (list_empty(&sdp->sd_ail1_list)) {
> - tail = sdp->sd_log_head;
> - } else {
> - tr = list_entry(sdp->sd_ail1_list.prev, struct gfs2_trans,
> - tr_list);
> - tail = tr->tr_first;
> - }
> + tr = list_last_entry_or_null(&sdp->sd_ail1_list, struct gfs2_trans,
> + tr_list);
> + tail = tr ? tr->tr_first : sdp->sd_log_head;
>
Personally I agree with Steven. At least in this case
list_last_entry_or_null() doesn't really help to simplify the code.
But probably list_last_entry() makes sense in the "else" branch,
athough this is minor.
Off-topic. Not sure this really makes sense, but I was thinking about
list_get_first(pos, head, member) \
((pos) = list_first_entry(head, typeof(*pos), member))
and list_get_first() last of course. The obvious advantage is that
compared to
tr = list_last_entry(sdp->sd_ail1_list, struct gfs2_trans, tr_list);
above you do not need to type "struct gfs2_trans",
list_get_last(tr, sdp->sd_ail1_list, tr_list);
looks a bit better.
Oleg.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Jeff Liu <jeff.liu@oracle.com>
Cc: jfs-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net, jiri@resnulli.us,
gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
"xfs@oss.sgi.com" <xfs@oss.sgi.com>,
cluster-devel@redhat.com, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org,
akpm@linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] gfs2: simplify current_tail() via list_last_entry_or_null()
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 17:39:57 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20131115163957.GA28467@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5285A3F4.4040000@oracle.com>
On 11/15, Jeff Liu wrote:
>
> @@ -441,13 +441,9 @@ static unsigned int current_tail(struct gfs2_sbd *sdp)
>
> spin_lock(&sdp->sd_ail_lock);
>
> - if (list_empty(&sdp->sd_ail1_list)) {
> - tail = sdp->sd_log_head;
> - } else {
> - tr = list_entry(sdp->sd_ail1_list.prev, struct gfs2_trans,
> - tr_list);
> - tail = tr->tr_first;
> - }
> + tr = list_last_entry_or_null(&sdp->sd_ail1_list, struct gfs2_trans,
> + tr_list);
> + tail = tr ? tr->tr_first : sdp->sd_log_head;
>
Personally I agree with Steven. At least in this case
list_last_entry_or_null() doesn't really help to simplify the code.
But probably list_last_entry() makes sense in the "else" branch,
athough this is minor.
Off-topic. Not sure this really makes sense, but I was thinking about
list_get_first(pos, head, member) \
((pos) = list_first_entry(head, typeof(*pos), member))
and list_get_first() last of course. The obvious advantage is that
compared to
tr = list_last_entry(sdp->sd_ail1_list, struct gfs2_trans, tr_list);
above you do not need to type "struct gfs2_trans",
list_get_last(tr, sdp->sd_ail1_list, tr_list);
looks a bit better.
Oleg.
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Jeff Liu <jeff.liu@oracle.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
"xfs@oss.sgi.com" <xfs@oss.sgi.com>,
cluster-devel@redhat.com, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org,
jfs-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net, jiri@resnulli.us,
gregkh@linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] gfs2: simplify current_tail() via list_last_entry_or_null()
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 17:39:57 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20131115163957.GA28467@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5285A3F4.4040000@oracle.com>
On 11/15, Jeff Liu wrote:
>
> @@ -441,13 +441,9 @@ static unsigned int current_tail(struct gfs2_sbd *sdp)
>
> spin_lock(&sdp->sd_ail_lock);
>
> - if (list_empty(&sdp->sd_ail1_list)) {
> - tail = sdp->sd_log_head;
> - } else {
> - tr = list_entry(sdp->sd_ail1_list.prev, struct gfs2_trans,
> - tr_list);
> - tail = tr->tr_first;
> - }
> + tr = list_last_entry_or_null(&sdp->sd_ail1_list, struct gfs2_trans,
> + tr_list);
> + tail = tr ? tr->tr_first : sdp->sd_log_head;
>
Personally I agree with Steven. At least in this case
list_last_entry_or_null() doesn't really help to simplify the code.
But probably list_last_entry() makes sense in the "else" branch,
athough this is minor.
Off-topic. Not sure this really makes sense, but I was thinking about
list_get_first(pos, head, member) \
((pos) = list_first_entry(head, typeof(*pos), member))
and list_get_first() last of course. The obvious advantage is that
compared to
tr = list_last_entry(sdp->sd_ail1_list, struct gfs2_trans, tr_list);
above you do not need to type "struct gfs2_trans",
list_get_last(tr, sdp->sd_ail1_list, tr_list);
looks a bit better.
Oleg.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-11-15 16:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-11-15 4:32 [Cluster-devel] [PATCH 3/6] gfs2: simplify current_tail() via list_last_entry_or_null() Jeff Liu
2013-11-15 4:32 ` Jeff Liu
2013-11-15 4:32 ` Jeff Liu
2013-11-15 4:32 ` Jeff Liu
2013-11-15 16:39 ` Oleg Nesterov [this message]
2013-11-15 16:39 ` Oleg Nesterov
2013-11-15 16:39 ` Oleg Nesterov
2013-11-15 16:39 ` Oleg Nesterov
2013-11-15 17:12 ` [Cluster-devel] introduce list_get_first/last (Was: [PATCH 3/6] gfs2: simplify current_tail() via list_last_entry_or_null()) Oleg Nesterov
2013-11-15 17:12 ` Oleg Nesterov
2013-11-15 17:12 ` Oleg Nesterov
2013-11-15 17:12 ` Oleg Nesterov
2013-11-18 5:41 ` [Cluster-devel] " Jeff Liu
2013-11-18 5:41 ` Jeff Liu
2013-11-18 5:41 ` Jeff Liu
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20131115163957.GA28467@redhat.com \
--to=oleg@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.