Re: [PATCH v7 1/4] lib/percpu-list: Per-cpu list with associated per-cpu locks

[Waiman Long <waiman.long@hpe.com>]

On 04/14/2016 07:33 PM, Boqun Feng wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 01:38:33PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
>> On 04/12/2016 10:09 PM, Boqun Feng wrote:
>>> Hi Waiman,
>>>
>>> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 06:54:43PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>> +
>>>> +/*
>>>> + * Initialize the per-cpu list head
>>>> + */
>>>> +int init_pcpu_list_head(struct pcpu_list_head **ppcpu_head)
>>>> +{
>>>> +	struct pcpu_list_head *pcpu_head = alloc_percpu(struct pcpu_list_head);
>>>> +	int cpu;
>>>> +
>>>> +	if (!pcpu_head)
>>>> +		return -ENOMEM;
>>>> +
>>>> +	for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
>>>> +		struct pcpu_list_head *head = per_cpu_ptr(pcpu_head, cpu);
>>>> +
>>>> +		INIT_LIST_HEAD(&head->list);
>>>> +		head->lock = __SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED(&head->lock);
>>>> +		lockdep_set_class(&head->lock,&percpu_list_key);
>>>> +	}
>>>> +
>>>> +	*ppcpu_head = pcpu_head;
>>>> +	return 0;
>>>> +}
>>> The first time I looked at this patch, I had a hard time to figure out
>>> which "struct pcpu_list_head" pointer is pointing to percpu data(the
>>> pointer could be the parameter for per/this_cpu_ptr()), and which
>>> pointer is pointing to actual structure. For example, 'pcpu_head' and
>>> 'head' above are different types of pointers.
>>>
>>> So besides improving my code reading skills, I think the following patch
>>> helps ;-) Also it can resolve several splats of sparse when running
>>> 'make C=1 lib/'.
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>> Yes, I think your patch is helpful. I will include your patch in my
>> patchset.
>>
> Given that a renaming will happen in the next version, carrying this as
> a standalone patch will be a pain, I think. So feel free to squash this
> into the patch #1, if that could make your job eariser ;-)
>
> Regards,
> Boqun
>
>

That is not a problem. I do want to acknowledge your contribution to 
this patchset.

Cheers,
Longman