Re: Q: (stupid) can't we "fix" hlist_for_each_entry() ?

[Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>]

On Wed, 2008-03-12 at 11:12 +0300, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> hlist_for_each_entry/hlist_for_each_entry_rcu doesn't actually need 4
> arguments, it could be
> 
> #define hlist_for_each_entry_rcu(pos, head, member)		 			\
> 	for (pos = hlist_entry((head)->first, typeof(*(pos)), member);			\
> 	     rcu_dereference(pos) != hlist_entry(NULL, typeof(*(pos)), member) &&	\
> 		({ prefetch((pos)->member.next); 1; });					\
> 	     (pos) = hlist_entry((pos)->member.next, typeof(*(pos)), member))
> 
> Or,
> 
> #define hlist_for_each_entry_rcu(pos, head, member)		 			\
> 	for (pos = (void*)(head)->first;						\
> 	     rcu_dereference(pos) && ({ prefetch(((hlist_node*)pos)->next); 1; }) &&	\
> 		({ (pos) = hlist_entry((void*)(pos), typeof(*(pos)), member)); 1; });	\
> 	     (pos) = (void*)(pos)->member.next)
> 
> Q: is it worth "fixing" ?

I'm in favour.

> If yes, what is the "right" way to do this? These macros are spread all over
> the kernel...

The usual way would be to prepare a git tree for Linus to pull right
after -rc1 I think was the best point, and at the same time supply
Andrew with a bunch of patches fixing up the various users in his tree.