From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S932226AbbE1VKW (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Thu, 28 May 2015 17:10:22 -0400
Received: from relay4-d.mail.gandi.net ([217.70.183.196]:46874 "EHLO
	relay4-d.mail.gandi.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1754868AbbE1VKO (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 28 May 2015 17:10:14 -0400
Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 14:10:10 -0700
From: josh@joshtriplett.org
To: Dan Streetman <ddstreet@ieee.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
        Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] rcu: introduce list_last_or_null_rcu
Message-ID: <20150528211010.GA31229@cloud>
References: <1432845328-27932-1-git-send-email-ddstreet@ieee.org>
 <20150528203938.GA31076@cloud>
 <CALZtONCyg3+SRs1Wn9KKeXkOgbS=vYBWq8wV7gepWPWsxKiQnQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALZtONA6yy+nS0tBd2ndKhrZdNWXrkMM_LL-nmwR3oOWzfUGbA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CALZtONA6yy+nS0tBd2ndKhrZdNWXrkMM_LL-nmwR3oOWzfUGbA@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 04:44:59PM -0400, Dan Streetman wrote:
> On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 4:42 PM, Dan Streetman <ddstreet@ieee.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 4:39 PM,  <josh@joshtriplett.org> wrote:
> >> On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 04:35:27PM -0400, Dan Streetman wrote:
> >>> Add list_last_or_null_rcu(), to simplify getting the last entry from a
> >>> rcu-protected list.  The standard list_last_entry() can't be used as it
> >>> is not rcu-protected; the list may be modified concurrently.  And the
> >>> ->prev pointer can't be used, as only the ->next pointers are protected
> >>> by rcu.
> >>>
> >>> This simply iterates forward through the entire list, to get to the last
> >>> entry.  If the list is empty, it returns NULL.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Dan Streetman <ddstreet@ieee.org>
> >>
> >> The list iteration functions are macros because they introduce a loop
> >> with attached loop block.  For this, is there any reason not to make it
> >> an inline function instead of a macro?
> >
> > true, there's no reason i can see not to make it inline, let me send
> > an updated patch.
> 
> ha, as soon as i sent that email, i realized it can't be an inline
> function, because the return value is (type *), not a predefined
> value.  Of course it could return void*, but unless there's a benefit
> of making it an inline function, it seems to me like it would be
> better as a #define.

Fair enough.  Sigh, C.

- Josh Triplett