From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dave.Martin@arm.com (Dave Martin) Date: Wed, 23 May 2018 14:57:32 +0100 Subject: [PATCH v10 02/18] thread_info: Add update_thread_flag() helpers In-Reply-To: <87po1mtrg3.fsf@linaro.org> References: <1527005119-6842-1-git-send-email-Dave.Martin@arm.com> <1527005119-6842-3-git-send-email-Dave.Martin@arm.com> <87po1mtrg3.fsf@linaro.org> Message-ID: <20180523135732.GK13470@e103592.cambridge.arm.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 02:46:52PM +0100, Alex Benn?e wrote: > > Dave Martin writes: > > > There are a number of bits of code sprinkled around the kernel to > > set a thread flag if a certain condition is true, and clear it > > otherwise. > > > > To help make those call sites terser and less cumbersome, this > > patch adds a new family of thread flag manipulators > > > > update*_thread_flag([...,] flag, cond) > > > > which do the equivalent of: > > > > if (cond) > > set*_thread_flag([...,] flag); > > else > > clear*_thread_flag([...,] flag); > > > > Signed-off-by: Dave Martin > > Acked-by: Steven Rostedt (VMware) > > Acked-by: Marc Zyngier > > Acked-by: Catalin Marinas > > Cc: Ingo Molnar > > Cc: Peter Zijlstra > > Cc: Oleg Nesterov > > --- > > include/linux/sched.h | 6 ++++++ > > include/linux/thread_info.h | 11 +++++++++++ > > 2 files changed, 17 insertions(+) > > [...] > > diff --git a/include/linux/thread_info.h b/include/linux/thread_info.h > > index cf2862b..8d8821b 100644 > > --- a/include/linux/thread_info.h > > +++ b/include/linux/thread_info.h > > @@ -60,6 +60,15 @@ static inline void clear_ti_thread_flag(struct thread_info *ti, int flag) > > clear_bit(flag, (unsigned long *)&ti->flags); > > } > > > > +static inline void update_ti_thread_flag(struct thread_info *ti, int flag, > > + bool value) > > +{ > > + if (value) > > + set_ti_thread_flag(ti, flag); > > + else > > + clear_ti_thread_flag(ti, flag); > > +} > > + > > value does seem a bit of vanilla non-informative name for a condition > flag but whatever: > > Reviewed-by: Alex Benn?e I guess, though I couldn't some up with an obviously better name. I support "condition" would have worked, but it's more verbose. Thanks for the review ---Dave