From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1761207AbZFKDY3 (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Jun 2009 23:24:29 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754155AbZFKDYW (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Jun 2009 23:24:22 -0400 Received: from cn.fujitsu.com ([222.73.24.84]:64043 "EHLO song.cn.fujitsu.com" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753018AbZFKDYV (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Jun 2009 23:24:21 -0400 Message-ID: <4A30793C.6090208@cn.fujitsu.com> Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 11:25:48 +0800 From: Lai Jiangshan User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Steven Rostedt CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar , Andrew Morton , Thomas Gleixner , Peter Zijlstra , Frederic Weisbecker , Theodore Tso , Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , Mathieu Desnoyers , "Martin J. Bligh" , Christoph Hellwig , Li Zefan , Huang Ying , "H. Peter Anvin" , Hidetoshi Seto , Masami Hiramatsu , Steven Rostedt Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] ring-buffer: make the buffer a true circular link list References: <20090610195311.767699959@goodmis.org> <20090610195524.945549278@goodmis.org> <4A305A1A.2010901@cn.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Thu, 11 Jun 2009, Lai Jiangshan wrote: > >>> - list_splice(&pages, head); >>> + /* >>> + * The ring buffer page list is a circular list that does not >>> + * start and end with a list head. All page list items point to >>> + * other pages. Remove one of the pages, init its list head, >>> + * and use list splice to move the rest of the pages to it. >>> + */ >>> + bpage = list_entry(pages.next, struct buffer_page, list); >>> + list_del_init(&bpage->list); >>> + cpu_buffer->pages = &bpage->list; >>> + >>> + list_splice(&pages, cpu_buffer->pages); >>> + >> Is it proper? >> >> cpu_buffer->pages = pages.next; >> list_del(&pages); >> > > Not sure what you are asking here? > I'm not sure whether these 4 lines: bpage = list_entry(pages.next, struct buffer_page, list); list_del_init(&bpage->list); cpu_buffer->pages = &bpage->list; list_splice(&pages, cpu_buffer->pages); equal to these 2 lines: cpu_buffer->pages = pages.next; list_del(&pages); If there are equivalent, I think the second one are simpler. It may be not a really necessarily cleanup. What I asked is: if there are equivalent, could you use these two line: cpu_buffer->pages = pages.next; list_del(&pages); Lai.