Re: [PATCH v2 03/45] notifier: Add atomic/blocking_notifier_has_unique_priority()
29.10.2021 00:32, Dmitry Osipenko пишет: >>> + /* >>> +* This code gets used during boot-up, when task switching is >>> +* not yet working and interrupts must remain disabled. At >> One space is enough. > This comment is replicated multiple times over this source file. You can > find it before each down_write(). I borrowed the text as-is, for > consistency. Actually, it should be down_read() here since there are no writes. I'll correct it in v3.
Re: [PATCH v2 03/45] notifier: Add atomic/blocking_notifier_has_unique_priority()
28.10.2021 14:00, Andy Shevchenko пишет:
>> +while ((*nl) != NULL && (*nl)->priority >= n->priority) {
> ' != NULL' is not needed.
>
I'll change it in v3, thanks.
Re: [PATCH v2 03/45] notifier: Add atomic/blocking_notifier_has_unique_priority()
28.10.2021 14:00, Andy Shevchenko пишет: > On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 12:16:33AM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote: >> Add atomic/blocking_notifier_has_unique_priority() helpers which return >> true if given handler has unique priority. > > ... > >> +/** >> + * atomic_notifier_has_unique_priority - Checks whether notifier's >> priority is unique >> + * @nh: Pointer to head of the atomic notifier chain >> + * @n: Entry in notifier chain to check >> + * >> + * Checks whether there is another notifier in the chain with the same >> priority. >> + * Must be called in process context. >> + * >> + * Returns true if priority is unique, false otherwise. > > Why this indentation? This is the same doc-comment style used by this file in general. I haven't tried to invent anything new. > ... > >> +/* >> + * This code gets used during boot-up, when task switching is >> + * not yet working and interrupts must remain disabled. At > > One space is enough. This comment is replicated multiple times over this source file. You can find it before each down_write(). I borrowed the text as-is, for consistency.
Re: [PATCH v2 03/45] notifier: Add atomic/blocking_notifier_has_unique_priority()
On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 12:16:33AM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
> Add atomic/blocking_notifier_has_unique_priority() helpers which return
> true if given handler has unique priority.
...
> +/**
> + * atomic_notifier_has_unique_priority - Checks whether notifier's
> priority is unique
> + * @nh: Pointer to head of the atomic notifier chain
> + * @n: Entry in notifier chain to check
> + *
> + * Checks whether there is another notifier in the chain with the same
> priority.
> + * Must be called in process context.
> + *
> + * Returns true if priority is unique, false otherwise.
Why this indentation?
> + */
> +bool atomic_notifier_has_unique_priority(struct atomic_notifier_head *nh,
> + struct notifier_block *n)
> +{
> + struct notifier_block **nl = >head;
> + unsigned long flags;
> + bool ret = true;
> +
> + spin_lock_irqsave(>lock, flags);
> +
> + while ((*nl) != NULL && (*nl)->priority >= n->priority) {
' != NULL' is redundant.
> + if ((*nl)->priority == n->priority && (*nl) != n) {
> + ret = false;
> + break;
> + }
> +
> + nl = &((*nl)->next);
> + }
> +
> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(>lock, flags);
> +
> + return ret;
> +}
...
> + /*
> + * This code gets used during boot-up, when task switching is
> + * not yet working and interrupts must remain disabled. At
One space is enough.
> + * such times we must not call down_write().
> + */
> + while ((*nl) != NULL && (*nl)->priority >= n->priority) {
' != NULL' is not needed.
> + if ((*nl)->priority == n->priority && (*nl) != n) {
> + ret = false;
> + break;
> + }
> +
> + nl = &((*nl)->next);
> + }
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
