Re: [PATCH v3 1/4] lib/dlock-list: Distributed and lock-protected lists

[Waiman Long]

On 07/19/2016 03:23 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 02:42:31PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> > > > +int alloc_dlock_list_head(struct dlock_list_head *dlist)
> > > > +{
> > > > +	struct dlock_list_head dlist_tmp;
> > > > +	int cpu;
> > > > +
> > > > +	dlist_tmp.head = alloc_percpu(struct dlock_list_head_percpu);
> > > > +	if (!dlist_tmp.head)
> > > > +		return -ENOMEM;
> > > > +
> > > > +	for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
> > > > +		struct dlock_list_head_percpu *head;
> > > > +
> > > > +		head = per_cpu_ptr(dlist_tmp.head, cpu);
> > > > +		INIT_LIST_HEAD(&head->list);
> > > > +		head->lock = __SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED(&head->lock);
> > > > +		lockdep_set_class(&head->lock,&dlock_list_key);
> > > > +	}
> > > > +
> > > > +	dlist->head = dlist_tmp.head;
> > > Just use dlist->head directly or use local __perpcu head pointer?
> > I just don't want to expose the structure to world until it is fully
> > initialized. If you think I am over-cautious, I can use dlist->head as
> > suggested.
> I don't think it makes any actual difference.  No strong opinion
> either way.  Just use local __percpu head pointer then?

I have run sparse on dlock_list.c. There is no need to use the __percpu 
tag here. The head gets assigned the result of per_cpu_ptr() which has 
no __percpu annotation. I actually got sparse warning if I used the 
__percpu tag.

Cheers,
Longman