[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAEXW_YTsT5BY5Qbc6Jju2XmbHSQFELrGM9UaPPXY-ETmJaBrsA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2019 09:04:44 -0400
From: Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
To: Daniel Jordan <daniel.m.jordan@...cle.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@....inr.ac.ru>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>, Neil Brown <neilb@...e.com>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.ibm.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
Peter Zilstra <peterz@...radead.org>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>, rcu <rcu@...r.kernel.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC 4/6] workqueue: Convert for_each_wq to use built-in list check
On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 9:25 PM Daniel Jordan <daniel.m.jordan@...cle.com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jun 01, 2019 at 06:27:36PM -0400, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> > list_for_each_entry_rcu now has support to check for RCU reader sections
> > as well as lock. Just use the support in it, instead of explictly
> > checking in the caller.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@...lfernandes.org>
> > ---
> > kernel/workqueue.c | 5 ++---
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/workqueue.c b/kernel/workqueue.c
> > index 9657315405de..91ed7aca16e5 100644
> > --- a/kernel/workqueue.c
> > +++ b/kernel/workqueue.c
> > @@ -424,9 +424,8 @@ static void workqueue_sysfs_unregister(struct workqueue_struct *wq);
> > * ignored.
> > */
> > #define for_each_pwq(pwq, wq) \
> > - list_for_each_entry_rcu((pwq), &(wq)->pwqs, pwqs_node) \
> > - if (({ assert_rcu_or_wq_mutex(wq); false; })) { } \
> > - else
> > + list_for_each_entry_rcu((pwq), &(wq)->pwqs, pwqs_node, \
> > + lock_is_held(&(wq->mutex).dep_map))
> >
>
> I think the definition of assert_rcu_or_wq_mutex can also be deleted.
Sure, will do. Thank you.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
