--
On Tue, 23 Oct 2007, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
quoted text
>
>  /**
> @@ -341,7 +341,13 @@ static inline void __list_splice(struct
>  static inline void list_splice(struct list_head *list, struct list_head *head)
>  {
>  	if (!list_empty(list))
> -		__list_splice(list, head);
> +		__list_splice(list, head, head->next);
> +}
> +


quoted text
> Index: linux-2.6/lib/lock_list.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.orig/lib/lock_list.c
> +++ linux-2.6/lib/lock_list.c
> @@ -128,7 +128,7 @@ void lock_list_splice_init(struct lock_l
>  	lock = __lock_list_reverse(list);
>  	if (!list_empty(&list->head)) {
>  		spin_lock_nested(&head->lock, LOCK_LIST_NESTING_NEXT);
> -		__list_splice(&list->head, &head->head);
> +		__list_splice(&list->head, &head->head, head->head.next);

Can't this just now be list_splice and not __list_splice?

Yes it tests for list_empty again, but that should (hopefully) be
optimized out.

-- Steve

quoted text
>  		INIT_LIST_HEAD(&list->head);
>  		spin_unlock(&head->lock);
>  	}
>
> --
>
>
>
-
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/