Re: [RFC PATCH 4/5] RCU: Add TASK_RCU_OFFSET

[Lai Jiangshan]

On 04/11/2011 01:12 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:

> -static inline struct task_struct *next_thread(const struct task_struct *p)
> -{
> -	return list_entry_rcu(p->thread_group.next,
> -			      struct task_struct, thread_group);
> -}
> +/* Avoid #include hell for inlining rcu_read_lock(). */
> +#define next_thread(p) \
> +	list_entry_rcu((p)->thread_group.next, struct task_struct, thread_group)
>  


It is strange for me.
The user of the API "next_thread(p)" must has two headers included, sched.h and rculist.h

I know this is a very popular pattern of user space code, is it OK for kernel?
I think a file(even a header file) uses API(Marco), it should includes the the corresponding
headers, it reduces surprises(example, the name of "next_thread()" has no "rcu",
it is not expected that rcuxxxx.h is required).

I admit the work will become very much simpler if this pattern is allowed.



man fcntl:
       #include <unistd.h>
       #include <fcntl.h>

       int fcntl(int fd, int cmd, ... /* arg */ );
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/