Searched +hist:2055 +hist:da97 (Results 1 - 17 of 17) sorted by relevance
/linux-master/kernel/sched/ | ||
H A D | wait_bit.c | diff 2055da97 Mon Jun 19 16:06:46 MDT 2017 Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> sched/wait: Disambiguate wq_entry->task_list and wq_head->task_list naming 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> diff 2055da97 Mon Jun 19 16:06:46 MDT 2017 Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> sched/wait: Disambiguate wq_entry->task_list and wq_head->task_list naming 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> |
H A D | wait.c | diff 2055da97 Mon Jun 19 16:06:46 MDT 2017 Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> sched/wait: Disambiguate wq_entry->task_list and wq_head->task_list naming 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> diff 2055da97 Mon Jun 19 16:06:46 MDT 2017 Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> sched/wait: Disambiguate wq_entry->task_list and wq_head->task_list naming 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> |
/linux-master/fs/ | ||
H A D | fs_pin.c | diff 2055da97 Mon Jun 19 16:06:46 MDT 2017 Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> sched/wait: Disambiguate wq_entry->task_list and wq_head->task_list naming 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> diff 2055da97 Mon Jun 19 16:06:46 MDT 2017 Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> sched/wait: Disambiguate wq_entry->task_list and wq_head->task_list naming 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> |
H A D | eventpoll.c | diff 2055da97 Mon Jun 19 16:06:46 MDT 2017 Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> sched/wait: Disambiguate wq_entry->task_list and wq_head->task_list naming 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> diff 2055da97 Mon Jun 19 16:06:46 MDT 2017 Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> sched/wait: Disambiguate wq_entry->task_list and wq_head->task_list naming 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> |
H A D | userfaultfd.c | diff 2055da97 Mon Jun 19 16:06:46 MDT 2017 Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> sched/wait: Disambiguate wq_entry->task_list and wq_head->task_list naming 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> diff 2055da97 Mon Jun 19 16:06:46 MDT 2017 Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> sched/wait: Disambiguate wq_entry->task_list and wq_head->task_list naming 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> |
/linux-master/include/linux/ | ||
H A D | wait_bit.h | diff 2055da97 Mon Jun 19 16:06:46 MDT 2017 Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> sched/wait: Disambiguate wq_entry->task_list and wq_head->task_list naming 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> diff 2055da97 Mon Jun 19 16:06:46 MDT 2017 Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> sched/wait: Disambiguate wq_entry->task_list and wq_head->task_list naming 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> |
H A D | wait.h | diff 2055da97 Mon Jun 19 16:06:46 MDT 2017 Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> sched/wait: Disambiguate wq_entry->task_list and wq_head->task_list naming 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> diff 2055da97 Mon Jun 19 16:06:46 MDT 2017 Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> sched/wait: Disambiguate wq_entry->task_list and wq_head->task_list naming 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> |
/linux-master/fs/orangefs/ | ||
H A D | orangefs-bufmap.c | diff 2055da97 Mon Jun 19 16:06:46 MDT 2017 Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> sched/wait: Disambiguate wq_entry->task_list and wq_head->task_list naming 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> diff 2055da97 Mon Jun 19 16:06:46 MDT 2017 Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> sched/wait: Disambiguate wq_entry->task_list and wq_head->task_list naming 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> |
/linux-master/drivers/rtc/ | ||
H A D | rtc-imxdi.c | diff 2055da97 Mon Jun 19 16:06:46 MDT 2017 Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> sched/wait: Disambiguate wq_entry->task_list and wq_head->task_list naming 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> diff 2055da97 Mon Jun 19 16:06:46 MDT 2017 Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> sched/wait: Disambiguate wq_entry->task_list and wq_head->task_list naming 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> |
/linux-master/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/ | ||
H A D | i915_sw_fence.c | diff 2055da97 Mon Jun 19 16:06:46 MDT 2017 Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> sched/wait: Disambiguate wq_entry->task_list and wq_head->task_list naming 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> diff 2055da97 Mon Jun 19 16:06:46 MDT 2017 Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> sched/wait: Disambiguate wq_entry->task_list and wq_head->task_list naming 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> |
/linux-master/block/ | ||
H A D | kyber-iosched.c | diff 2055da97 Mon Jun 19 16:06:46 MDT 2017 Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> sched/wait: Disambiguate wq_entry->task_list and wq_head->task_list naming 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> diff 2055da97 Mon Jun 19 16:06:46 MDT 2017 Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> sched/wait: Disambiguate wq_entry->task_list and wq_head->task_list naming 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> |
H A D | blk-wbt.c | diff 2055da97 Mon Jun 19 16:06:46 MDT 2017 Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> sched/wait: Disambiguate wq_entry->task_list and wq_head->task_list naming 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> diff 2055da97 Mon Jun 19 16:06:46 MDT 2017 Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> sched/wait: Disambiguate wq_entry->task_list and wq_head->task_list naming 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> |
H A D | blk-mq.c | diff 2055da97 Mon Jun 19 16:06:46 MDT 2017 Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> sched/wait: Disambiguate wq_entry->task_list and wq_head->task_list naming 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> diff 2055da97 Mon Jun 19 16:06:46 MDT 2017 Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> sched/wait: Disambiguate wq_entry->task_list and wq_head->task_list naming 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> |
/linux-master/fs/nilfs2/ | ||
H A D | segment.c | diff 2055da97 Mon Jun 19 16:06:46 MDT 2017 Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> sched/wait: Disambiguate wq_entry->task_list and wq_head->task_list naming 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> diff 2055da97 Mon Jun 19 16:06:46 MDT 2017 Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> sched/wait: Disambiguate wq_entry->task_list and wq_head->task_list naming 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> |
/linux-master/mm/ | ||
H A D | shmem.c | diff 2055da97 Mon Jun 19 16:06:46 MDT 2017 Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> sched/wait: Disambiguate wq_entry->task_list and wq_head->task_list naming 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> diff 2055da97 Mon Jun 19 16:06:46 MDT 2017 Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> sched/wait: Disambiguate wq_entry->task_list and wq_head->task_list naming 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> |
H A D | filemap.c | diff 2055da97 Mon Jun 19 16:06:46 MDT 2017 Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> sched/wait: Disambiguate wq_entry->task_list and wq_head->task_list naming 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> diff 2055da97 Mon Jun 19 16:06:46 MDT 2017 Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> sched/wait: Disambiguate wq_entry->task_list and wq_head->task_list naming 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> |
H A D | memcontrol.c | diff 2055da97 Mon Jun 19 16:06:46 MDT 2017 Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> sched/wait: Disambiguate wq_entry->task_list and wq_head->task_list naming 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> diff 2055da97 Mon Jun 19 16:06:46 MDT 2017 Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> sched/wait: Disambiguate wq_entry->task_list and wq_head->task_list naming 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> |
Completed in 2449 milliseconds