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 S1752488AbdB1OKG (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Tue, 28 Feb 2017 09:10:06 -0500
Received: from LGEAMRELO13.lge.com ([156.147.23.53]:60317 "EHLO
        lgeamrelo13.lge.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1752447AbdB1OKD (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Tue, 28 Feb 2017 09:10:03 -0500
X-Original-SENDERIP: 156.147.1.121
X-Original-MAILFROM: byungchul.park@lge.com
X-Original-SENDERIP: 10.177.222.33
X-Original-MAILFROM: byungchul.park@lge.com
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 22:24:44 +0900
From: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: mingo@kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de, walken@google.com,
        boqun.feng@gmail.com, kirill@shutemov.name,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, npiggin@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 06/13] lockdep: Implement crossrelease feature
Message-ID: <20170228132444.GG3817@X58A-UD3R>
References: <1484745459-2055-1-git-send-email-byungchul.park@lge.com>
 <1484745459-2055-7-git-send-email-byungchul.park@lge.com>
 <20170228131012.GI5680@worktop>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20170228131012.GI5680@worktop>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 02:10:12PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_LOCKDEP_CROSSRELEASE
> > +
> > +#define idx(t)			((t)->xhlock_idx)
> > +#define idx_prev(i)		((i) ? (i) - 1 : MAX_XHLOCKS_NR - 1)
> > +#define idx_next(i)		(((i) + 1) % MAX_XHLOCKS_NR)
> 
> Note that:
> 
> #define idx_prev(i)		(((i) - 1) % MAX_XHLOCKS_NR)
> #define idx_next(i)		(((i) + 1) % MAX_XHLOCKS_NR)
> 
> is more symmetric and easier to understand.

OK. I will do it after forcing MAX_XHLOCKS_NR to be power of 2. Current
value of it is already power of 2 but I need to add comment explaning it.

> > +
> > +/* For easy access to xhlock */
> > +#define xhlock(t, i)		((t)->xhlocks + (i))
> > +#define xhlock_prev(t, l)	xhlock(t, idx_prev((l) - (t)->xhlocks))
> > +#define xhlock_curr(t)		xhlock(t, idx(t))
> 
> So these result in an xhlock pointer
> 
> > +#define xhlock_incr(t)		({idx(t) = idx_next(idx(t));})
> 
> This does not; which is confusing seeing how they share the same
> namespace; also incr is weird.

OK.. Could you suggest a better name? xhlock_adv()? advance_xhlock()?
And.. replace it with a function?