On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 01:59:44PM +0100, Daniel Wagner wrote:
> Hi Boqun,
>
> On 10/26/2015 01:04 PM, Boqun Feng wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 09:28:07AM +0200, Daniel Wagner wrote:
> >> +
> >> +/*
> >> + * The thing about the wake_up_state() return value; I think we can
> >> ignore it.
> >> + *
> >> + * If for some reason it would return 0, that means the previously waiting
> >> + * task is already running, so it will observe condition true (or has
> >> already).
> >> + */
> >> +void swake_up_locked(struct swait_queue_head *q)
> >> +{
> >> + struct swait_queue *curr;
> >> +
> >> + list_for_each_entry(curr, &q->task_list, task_list) {
> >> + wake_up_process(curr->task);
> >> + list_del_init(&curr->task_list);
> >> + break;
> >
> > Just be curious, what's this break for? Or what's this loop(?) for?
>
> I have to guess here, since Peter wrote it. It looks like the function
> is based on __wake_up_common(). Though I agree the loop is not necessary
> and something like below should the trick. Unless I do not see something
> important.
>
> void swake_up_locked(struct swait_queue_head *q)
> {
> struct swait_queue *curr;
>
> if (list_emtpy(&q))
> return;
>
> curr = list_first_entry(&q, typeof(*curr), task_list);
> wake_up_process(curr->task);
> list_del_init(&curr->task_list);
> }
>
> If Peter is not complaining I change swake_up_locked() for the next version.
Yes, that is equivalent, just more code. As I wrote in my last email; I
was lazy :-)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
