On Tue, Dec 26, 2017 at 07:58:15PM -0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 26, 2017 at 07:43:40PM -0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > Also add the xa_lock() and xa_unlock() family of wrappers to make it
> > easier to use the lock. If we could rely on -fplan9-extensions in
> > the compiler, we could avoid all of this syntactic sugar, but that
> > wasn't added until gcc 4.6.
>
> Oh, in case anyone's wondering, here's how I'd do it with plan9 extensions:
>
> struct xarray {
> spinlock_t;
> int xa_flags;
> void *xa_head;
> };
>
> ...
> spin_lock_irqsave(&mapping->pages, flags);
> __delete_from_page_cache(page, NULL);
> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&mapping->pages, flags);
> ...
>
> The plan9 extensions permit passing a pointer to a struct which has an
> unnamed element to a function which is expecting a pointer to the type
> of that element. The compiler does any necessary arithmetic to produce
> a pointer. It's exactly as if I had written:
>
> spin_lock_irqsave(&mapping->pages.xa_lock, flags);
> __delete_from_page_cache(page, NULL);
> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&mapping->pages.xa_lock, flags);
>
> More details here: https://9p.io/sys/doc/compiler.html
I read the link, and I understand (from section 3.3) that replacing
foo.bar.baz.goo with foo.goo is less typing, but otoh the first time I
read your example above I thought "we're passing (an array of pages |
something that doesn't have the word 'lock' in the name) to
spin_lock_irqsave? wtf?"
I suppose it does force me to go dig into whatever mapping->pages is to
figure out that there's an unnamed spinlock_t and that the compiler can
insert the appropriate pointer arithmetic, but now my brain trips over
'pages' being at the end of the selector for parameter 1 which slows
down my review reading...
OTOH I guess it /did/ motivate me to click the link, so well played,
sir. :)
--D
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in
> the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
