On Sun, 9 Jun 2002, OGAWA Hirofumi wrote:
> Lightweight patch manager <patch@luckynet.dynu.com> writes:
>
> > This is the only _global_ patch about the list_move macros, which means
> > introducing them. Here they are:
> >
> > --- linus-2.5/include/linux/list.h Sun Jun 9 04:17:14 2002
> > +++ thunder-2.5/include/linux/list.h Sun Jun 9 05:07:02 2002
> > @@ -174,6 +174,24 @@
> > for (pos = (head)->next, n = pos->next; pos != (head); \
> > pos = n, n = pos->next)
> >
> > +/**
> > + * list_move - move a list entry from a right after b
> > + * @list the entry to move
> > + * @head the entry to move after
> > + */
> > +#define list_move(list,head) \
> > + list_del(list); \
> > + list_add(list,head)
> > +
> > +/**
> > + * list_move_tail - move a list entry from a right before b
> > + * @list the entry to move
> > + * @head the entry that will come after ours
> > + */
> > +#define list_move(list,head) \
> ^^^^
> Probably typo. list_move_tail.
>
> > + list_del(list); \
> > + list_add_tail(list,head)
> > +
> > #endif /* __KERNEL__ || _LVM_H_INCLUDE */
> >
> > #endif
>
> if (check_something(x))
> list_move(p, head);
>
> In the above case, these seems unsafe. So, shouldn't these use
> `do {} while(0)' or `inline function'?
another possible solution would be:
static __inline__ void list_move(list_t *list, struct list_t *head)
{
__list_del(list->prev, list->next);
list_add(list, head);
}
static __inline__ void list_move_tail(list_t *list, struct list_t *head)
{
__list_del(list->prev, list->next);
list_add_tail(list, head);
}
this gets rid of the problem described above,
adds inline advantages
removes zeroing of entry->(next|prev) ... which is not needed for move
tm
-- in some way i do, and in some way i don't.- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jun 15 2002 - 22:00:14 EST