mirror of
https://github.com/edk2-porting/linux-next.git
synced 2024-12-16 01:04:08 +08:00
2055da9738
So I've noticed a number of instances where it was not obvious from the
code whether ->task_list was for a wait-queue head or a wait-queue entry.
Furthermore, there's a number of wait-queue users where the lists are
not for 'tasks' but other entities (poll tables, etc.), in which case
the 'task_list' name is actively confusing.
To clear this all up, name the wait-queue head and entry list structure
fields unambiguously:
struct wait_queue_head::task_list => ::head
struct wait_queue_entry::task_list => ::entry
For example, this code:
rqw->wait.task_list.next != &wait->task_list
... is was pretty unclear (to me) what it's doing, while now it's written this way:
rqw->wait.head.next != &wait->entry
... which makes it pretty clear that we are iterating a list until we see the head.
Other examples are:
list_for_each_entry_safe(pos, next, &x->task_list, task_list) {
list_for_each_entry(wq, &fence->wait.task_list, task_list) {
... where it's unclear (to me) what we are iterating, and during review it's
hard to tell whether it's trying to walk a wait-queue entry (which would be
a bug), while now it's written as:
list_for_each_entry_safe(pos, next, &x->head, entry) {
list_for_each_entry(wq, &fence->wait.head, entry) {
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
|
||
|---|---|---|
| .. | ||
| bind.c | ||
| daemon.c | ||
| interface.c | ||
| internal.h | ||
| Kconfig | ||
| key.c | ||
| main.c | ||
| Makefile | ||
| namei.c | ||
| proc.c | ||
| rdwr.c | ||
| security.c | ||
| xattr.c | ||