From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S932140AbbJZM7w (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Mon, 26 Oct 2015 08:59:52 -0400
Received: from mail.bmw-carit.de ([62.245.222.98]:57370 "EHLO
	mail.bmw-carit.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S932117AbbJZM7u (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 26 Oct 2015 08:59:50 -0400
X-CTCH-RefID: str=0001.0A0C0204.562E23C1.00F7,ss=1,re=0.000,recu=0.000,reip=0.000,cl=1,cld=1,fgs=0
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/4] wait.[ch]: Introduce the simple waitqueue (swait)
 implementation
To: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
References: <1445326090-1698-1-git-send-email-daniel.wagner@bmw-carit.de>
 <1445326090-1698-2-git-send-email-daniel.wagner@bmw-carit.de>
 <20151026120426.GA1497@fixme-laptop.cn.ibm.com>
CC: <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org>,
        "Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@windriver.com>,
        Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
From: Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@bmw-carit.de>
X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110
Message-ID: <562E23C0.9000500@bmw-carit.de>
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2015 13:59:44 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20151026120426.GA1497@fixme-laptop.cn.ibm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

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.

Thanks,
Daniel