All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: cluster-devel.redhat.com
Subject: [Cluster-devel] introduce list_get_first/last (Was: [PATCH 3/6] gfs2: simplify	current_tail() via list_last_entry_or_null())
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 18:12:59 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20131115171259.GA10687@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20131115163957.GA28467@redhat.com>

On 11/15, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> 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.

And list.h can use it too.

So how about the patch below? I can't decide whether it cleanups or
uglfies the code, I do not trust my taste ;) But to me it looks a
bit better this way.

Oleg.
--

diff --git a/include/linux/list.h b/include/linux/list.h
index ef95941..f52aba8 100644
--- a/include/linux/list.h
+++ b/include/linux/list.h
@@ -372,6 +372,12 @@ static inline void list_splice_tail_init(struct list_head *list,
 #define list_last_entry(ptr, type, member) \
 	list_entry((ptr)->prev, type, member)
 
+#define list_get_first(pos, head, member)	\
+	((pos) = list_first_entry(head, typeof(*(pos)), member))
+
+#define list_get_last(pos, head, member)	\
+	((pos) = list_last_entry(head, typeof(*(pos)), member))
+
 /**
  * list_first_entry_or_null - get the first element from a list
  * @ptr:	the list head to take the element from.
@@ -443,7 +449,7 @@ static inline void list_splice_tail_init(struct list_head *list,
  * @member:	the name of the list_struct within the struct.
  */
 #define list_for_each_entry(pos, head, member)				\
-	for (pos = list_first_entry(head, typeof(*pos), member);	\
+	for (list_get_first(pos, head, member);				\
 	     &pos->member != (head);					\
 	     pos = list_next_entry(pos, member))
 
@@ -454,7 +460,7 @@ static inline void list_splice_tail_init(struct list_head *list,
  * @member:	the name of the list_struct within the struct.
  */
 #define list_for_each_entry_reverse(pos, head, member)			\
-	for (pos = list_last_entry(head, typeof(*pos), member);		\
+	for (list_get_last(pos, head, member);				\
 	     &pos->member != (head); 					\
 	     pos = list_prev_entry(pos, member))
 
@@ -517,7 +523,7 @@ static inline void list_splice_tail_init(struct list_head *list,
  * @member:	the name of the list_struct within the struct.
  */
 #define list_for_each_entry_safe(pos, n, head, member)			\
-	for (pos = list_first_entry(head, typeof(*pos), member),	\
+	for (list_get_first(pos, head, member),				\
 		n = list_next_entry(pos, member);			\
 	     &pos->member != (head); 					\
 	     pos = n, n = list_next_entry(n, member))
@@ -564,7 +570,7 @@ static inline void list_splice_tail_init(struct list_head *list,
  * of list entry.
  */
 #define list_for_each_entry_safe_reverse(pos, n, head, member)		\
-	for (pos = list_last_entry(head, typeof(*pos), member),		\
+	for (list_get_last(pos, head, member),				\
 		n = list_prev_entry(pos, member);			\
 	     &pos->member != (head); 					\
 	     pos = n, n = list_prev_entry(n, member))



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: introduce list_get_first/last (Was: [PATCH 3/6] gfs2: simplify current_tail() via list_last_entry_or_null())
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 18:12:59 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20131115171259.GA10687@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20131115163957.GA28467@redhat.com>

On 11/15, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> 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.

And list.h can use it too.

So how about the patch below? I can't decide whether it cleanups or
uglfies the code, I do not trust my taste ;) But to me it looks a
bit better this way.

Oleg.
--

diff --git a/include/linux/list.h b/include/linux/list.h
index ef95941..f52aba8 100644
--- a/include/linux/list.h
+++ b/include/linux/list.h
@@ -372,6 +372,12 @@ static inline void list_splice_tail_init(struct list_head *list,
 #define list_last_entry(ptr, type, member) \
 	list_entry((ptr)->prev, type, member)
 
+#define list_get_first(pos, head, member)	\
+	((pos) = list_first_entry(head, typeof(*(pos)), member))
+
+#define list_get_last(pos, head, member)	\
+	((pos) = list_last_entry(head, typeof(*(pos)), member))
+
 /**
  * list_first_entry_or_null - get the first element from a list
  * @ptr:	the list head to take the element from.
@@ -443,7 +449,7 @@ static inline void list_splice_tail_init(struct list_head *list,
  * @member:	the name of the list_struct within the struct.
  */
 #define list_for_each_entry(pos, head, member)				\
-	for (pos = list_first_entry(head, typeof(*pos), member);	\
+	for (list_get_first(pos, head, member);				\
 	     &pos->member != (head);					\
 	     pos = list_next_entry(pos, member))
 
@@ -454,7 +460,7 @@ static inline void list_splice_tail_init(struct list_head *list,
  * @member:	the name of the list_struct within the struct.
  */
 #define list_for_each_entry_reverse(pos, head, member)			\
-	for (pos = list_last_entry(head, typeof(*pos), member);		\
+	for (list_get_last(pos, head, member);				\
 	     &pos->member != (head); 					\
 	     pos = list_prev_entry(pos, member))
 
@@ -517,7 +523,7 @@ static inline void list_splice_tail_init(struct list_head *list,
  * @member:	the name of the list_struct within the struct.
  */
 #define list_for_each_entry_safe(pos, n, head, member)			\
-	for (pos = list_first_entry(head, typeof(*pos), member),	\
+	for (list_get_first(pos, head, member),				\
 		n = list_next_entry(pos, member);			\
 	     &pos->member != (head); 					\
 	     pos = n, n = list_next_entry(n, member))
@@ -564,7 +570,7 @@ static inline void list_splice_tail_init(struct list_head *list,
  * of list entry.
  */
 #define list_for_each_entry_safe_reverse(pos, n, head, member)		\
-	for (pos = list_last_entry(head, typeof(*pos), member),		\
+	for (list_get_last(pos, head, member),				\
 		n = list_prev_entry(pos, member);			\
 	     &pos->member != (head); 					\
 	     pos = n, n = list_prev_entry(n, member))

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: introduce list_get_first/last (Was: [PATCH 3/6] gfs2: simplify current_tail() via list_last_entry_or_null())
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 18:12:59 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20131115171259.GA10687@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20131115163957.GA28467@redhat.com>

On 11/15, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> 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.

And list.h can use it too.

So how about the patch below? I can't decide whether it cleanups or
uglfies the code, I do not trust my taste ;) But to me it looks a
bit better this way.

Oleg.
--

diff --git a/include/linux/list.h b/include/linux/list.h
index ef95941..f52aba8 100644
--- a/include/linux/list.h
+++ b/include/linux/list.h
@@ -372,6 +372,12 @@ static inline void list_splice_tail_init(struct list_head *list,
 #define list_last_entry(ptr, type, member) \
 	list_entry((ptr)->prev, type, member)
 
+#define list_get_first(pos, head, member)	\
+	((pos) = list_first_entry(head, typeof(*(pos)), member))
+
+#define list_get_last(pos, head, member)	\
+	((pos) = list_last_entry(head, typeof(*(pos)), member))
+
 /**
  * list_first_entry_or_null - get the first element from a list
  * @ptr:	the list head to take the element from.
@@ -443,7 +449,7 @@ static inline void list_splice_tail_init(struct list_head *list,
  * @member:	the name of the list_struct within the struct.
  */
 #define list_for_each_entry(pos, head, member)				\
-	for (pos = list_first_entry(head, typeof(*pos), member);	\
+	for (list_get_first(pos, head, member);				\
 	     &pos->member != (head);					\
 	     pos = list_next_entry(pos, member))
 
@@ -454,7 +460,7 @@ static inline void list_splice_tail_init(struct list_head *list,
  * @member:	the name of the list_struct within the struct.
  */
 #define list_for_each_entry_reverse(pos, head, member)			\
-	for (pos = list_last_entry(head, typeof(*pos), member);		\
+	for (list_get_last(pos, head, member);				\
 	     &pos->member != (head); 					\
 	     pos = list_prev_entry(pos, member))
 
@@ -517,7 +523,7 @@ static inline void list_splice_tail_init(struct list_head *list,
  * @member:	the name of the list_struct within the struct.
  */
 #define list_for_each_entry_safe(pos, n, head, member)			\
-	for (pos = list_first_entry(head, typeof(*pos), member),	\
+	for (list_get_first(pos, head, member),				\
 		n = list_next_entry(pos, member);			\
 	     &pos->member != (head); 					\
 	     pos = n, n = list_next_entry(n, member))
@@ -564,7 +570,7 @@ static inline void list_splice_tail_init(struct list_head *list,
  * of list entry.
  */
 #define list_for_each_entry_safe_reverse(pos, n, head, member)		\
-	for (pos = list_last_entry(head, typeof(*pos), member),		\
+	for (list_get_last(pos, head, member),				\
 		n = list_prev_entry(pos, member);			\
 	     &pos->member != (head); 					\
 	     pos = n, n = list_prev_entry(n, member))

_______________________________________________
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: introduce list_get_first/last (Was: [PATCH 3/6] gfs2: simplify current_tail() via list_last_entry_or_null())
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 18:12:59 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20131115171259.GA10687@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20131115163957.GA28467@redhat.com>

On 11/15, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> 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.

And list.h can use it too.

So how about the patch below? I can't decide whether it cleanups or
uglfies the code, I do not trust my taste ;) But to me it looks a
bit better this way.

Oleg.
--

diff --git a/include/linux/list.h b/include/linux/list.h
index ef95941..f52aba8 100644
--- a/include/linux/list.h
+++ b/include/linux/list.h
@@ -372,6 +372,12 @@ static inline void list_splice_tail_init(struct list_head *list,
 #define list_last_entry(ptr, type, member) \
 	list_entry((ptr)->prev, type, member)
 
+#define list_get_first(pos, head, member)	\
+	((pos) = list_first_entry(head, typeof(*(pos)), member))
+
+#define list_get_last(pos, head, member)	\
+	((pos) = list_last_entry(head, typeof(*(pos)), member))
+
 /**
  * list_first_entry_or_null - get the first element from a list
  * @ptr:	the list head to take the element from.
@@ -443,7 +449,7 @@ static inline void list_splice_tail_init(struct list_head *list,
  * @member:	the name of the list_struct within the struct.
  */
 #define list_for_each_entry(pos, head, member)				\
-	for (pos = list_first_entry(head, typeof(*pos), member);	\
+	for (list_get_first(pos, head, member);				\
 	     &pos->member != (head);					\
 	     pos = list_next_entry(pos, member))
 
@@ -454,7 +460,7 @@ static inline void list_splice_tail_init(struct list_head *list,
  * @member:	the name of the list_struct within the struct.
  */
 #define list_for_each_entry_reverse(pos, head, member)			\
-	for (pos = list_last_entry(head, typeof(*pos), member);		\
+	for (list_get_last(pos, head, member);				\
 	     &pos->member != (head); 					\
 	     pos = list_prev_entry(pos, member))
 
@@ -517,7 +523,7 @@ static inline void list_splice_tail_init(struct list_head *list,
  * @member:	the name of the list_struct within the struct.
  */
 #define list_for_each_entry_safe(pos, n, head, member)			\
-	for (pos = list_first_entry(head, typeof(*pos), member),	\
+	for (list_get_first(pos, head, member),				\
 		n = list_next_entry(pos, member);			\
 	     &pos->member != (head); 					\
 	     pos = n, n = list_next_entry(n, member))
@@ -564,7 +570,7 @@ static inline void list_splice_tail_init(struct list_head *list,
  * of list entry.
  */
 #define list_for_each_entry_safe_reverse(pos, n, head, member)		\
-	for (pos = list_last_entry(head, typeof(*pos), member),		\
+	for (list_get_last(pos, head, member),				\
 		n = list_prev_entry(pos, member);			\
 	     &pos->member != (head); 					\
 	     pos = n, n = list_prev_entry(n, member))


  reply	other threads:[~2013-11-15 17:12 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 ` [Cluster-devel] " Oleg Nesterov
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   ` Oleg Nesterov [this message]
2013-11-15 17:12     ` 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
2013-11-18  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=20131115171259.GA10687@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.