Re: [RFC 2/1] seqlock: make the read_seqbegin_or_lock() API more simple and less error-prone ?

[David Howells]

Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 
> Can we improve this API?

It would also be nice to fix the static lock-balance detection stuff that you
get when you enable advanced checking during a kernel build.  It doesn't
seem to understand seqlocks.

> 	-	nextseq = 0;
> 	+	seq = 0;

Perhaps an init function or macro that hides this bit?

	void init_read_seqlock(int *seq)
	{
		*seq = 0;
	}

	init_read_seqlock(&seq);

or:

	#define INIT_READ_SEQBEGIN 0

	seq = INIT_READ_SEQBEGIN;

Though if we can fold the whole loop inside a macro, that might make it easier
to use.

d_walk() in fs/dcache.c might give you issues, though.

David