'notifier_block' can be replaced with 'list_head' when used for
'notifier_head', this make the a little more clear.
Signed-off-by: Baodong Chen <chenbaodong@mxnavi.com>
---
xen/common/notifier.c | 12 ++++++------
xen/include/xen/notifier.h | 7 +++----
2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
diff --git a/xen/common/notifier.c b/xen/common/notifier.c
index 34488a8..c7b0669 100644
--- a/xen/common/notifier.c
+++ b/xen/common/notifier.c
@@ -21,10 +21,10 @@
void __init notifier_chain_register(
struct notifier_head *nh, struct notifier_block *n)
{
- struct list_head *chain = &nh->head.chain;
+ struct list_head *chain = &nh->head;
struct notifier_block *nb;
- while ( chain->next != &nh->head.chain )
+ while ( chain->next != &nh->head )
{
nb = list_entry(chain->next, struct notifier_block, chain);
if ( n->priority > nb->priority )
@@ -71,16 +71,16 @@ int notifier_call_chain(
{
int ret = NOTIFY_DONE;
struct list_head *cursor;
- struct notifier_block *nb;
+ struct notifier_block *nb = NULL;
bool_t reverse = !!(val & NOTIFY_REVERSE);
- cursor = &(pcursor && *pcursor ? *pcursor : &nh->head)->chain;
+ cursor = (pcursor && *pcursor ? &(*pcursor)->chain : &nh->head);
do {
cursor = reverse ? cursor->prev : cursor->next;
- nb = list_entry(cursor, struct notifier_block, chain);
- if ( cursor == &nh->head.chain )
+ if ( cursor == &nh->head )
break;
+ nb = list_entry(cursor, struct notifier_block, chain);
ret = nb->notifier_call(nb, val, v);
} while ( !(ret & NOTIFY_STOP_MASK) );
diff --git a/xen/include/xen/notifier.h b/xen/include/xen/notifier.h
index d1ff9b1..2e58bd9 100644
--- a/xen/include/xen/notifier.h
+++ b/xen/include/xen/notifier.h
@@ -29,13 +29,12 @@ struct notifier_block {
};
struct notifier_head {
- struct notifier_block head;
+ struct list_head head;
};
-#define NOTIFIER_INIT(name) { .head.chain = LIST_HEAD_INIT(name.head.chain) }
+#define NOTIFIER_HEAD(name) \
+ struct notifier_head name = {.head = LIST_HEAD_INIT(name.head)}
-#define NOTIFIER_HEAD(name) \
- struct notifier_head name = NOTIFIER_INIT(name)
void notifier_chain_register(
struct notifier_head *nh, struct notifier_block *nb);
--
2.7.4
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
>>> On 03.06.19 at 03:33, <chenbaodong@mxnavi.com> wrote: > 'notifier_block' can be replaced with 'list_head' when used for > 'notifier_head', this make the a little more clear. I guess you mean "... makes the code a little ..."? > @@ -71,16 +71,16 @@ int notifier_call_chain( > { > int ret = NOTIFY_DONE; > struct list_head *cursor; > - struct notifier_block *nb; > + struct notifier_block *nb = NULL; > bool_t reverse = !!(val & NOTIFY_REVERSE); > > - cursor = &(pcursor && *pcursor ? *pcursor : &nh->head)->chain; > + cursor = (pcursor && *pcursor ? &(*pcursor)->chain : &nh->head); The outermost parentheses are now not really needed anymore. > --- a/xen/include/xen/notifier.h > +++ b/xen/include/xen/notifier.h > @@ -29,13 +29,12 @@ struct notifier_block { > }; > > struct notifier_head { > - struct notifier_block head; > + struct list_head head; > }; > > -#define NOTIFIER_INIT(name) { .head.chain = LIST_HEAD_INIT(name.head.chain) } Note the blanks immediately inside the figure braces - ... > +#define NOTIFIER_HEAD(name) \ > + struct notifier_head name = {.head = LIST_HEAD_INIT(name.head)} ... please don't break such style aspects, unless you know it is something that needs fixing (for being in violation of our style guidelines). Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
On 6/3/19 17:27, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 03.06.19 at 03:33, <chenbaodong@mxnavi.com> wrote: >> 'notifier_block' can be replaced with 'list_head' when used for >> 'notifier_head', this make the a little more clear. > I guess you mean "... makes the code a little ..."? Yes, fixed, see v1. >> @@ -71,16 +71,16 @@ int notifier_call_chain( >> { >> int ret = NOTIFY_DONE; >> struct list_head *cursor; >> - struct notifier_block *nb; >> + struct notifier_block *nb = NULL; >> bool_t reverse = !!(val & NOTIFY_REVERSE); >> >> - cursor = &(pcursor && *pcursor ? *pcursor : &nh->head)->chain; >> + cursor = (pcursor && *pcursor ? &(*pcursor)->chain : &nh->head); > The outermost parentheses are now not really needed anymore. Yes, fixed, see v1. > >> --- a/xen/include/xen/notifier.h >> +++ b/xen/include/xen/notifier.h >> @@ -29,13 +29,12 @@ struct notifier_block { >> }; >> >> struct notifier_head { >> - struct notifier_block head; >> + struct list_head head; >> }; >> >> -#define NOTIFIER_INIT(name) { .head.chain = LIST_HEAD_INIT(name.head.chain) } > Note the blanks immediately inside the figure braces - ... Yes, fixed, see v1. > >> +#define NOTIFIER_HEAD(name) \ >> + struct notifier_head name = {.head = LIST_HEAD_INIT(name.head)} > ... please don't break such style aspects, unless you know > it is something that needs fixing (for being in violation of our > style guidelines). Yes, fixed, see v1. > > Jan > > > . > _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
>>> On 03.06.19 at 03:33, <chenbaodong@mxnavi.com> wrote: > 'notifier_block' can be replaced with 'list_head' when used for > 'notifier_head', this make the a little more clear. > > Signed-off-by: Baodong Chen <chenbaodong@mxnavi.com> Oh, and also a remark regarding the title: Why "RESEND"? This should be used only if you re-send an entirely unchanged patch, perhaps because of a correction to the recipients list. Otherwise please increment the version number. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
On 6/3/19 17:28, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 03.06.19 at 03:33, <chenbaodong@mxnavi.com> wrote: >> 'notifier_block' can be replaced with 'list_head' when used for >> 'notifier_head', this make the a little more clear. >> >> Signed-off-by: Baodong Chen <chenbaodong@mxnavi.com> > Oh, and also a remark regarding the title: Why "RESEND"? This > should be used only if you re-send an entirely unchanged patch, > perhaps because of a correction to the recipients list. Otherwise > please increment the version number. Hello Jan, Thanks for guiding me to the right direction. This is my first experience sending patch using mail list. I will use version number instead of resend next time. > Jan > > > . > _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
© 2016 - 2024 Red Hat, Inc.