Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 28 Oct 2021 14:00:31 +0300 | From | Andy Shevchenko <> | Subject | 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 = &nh->head; > + unsigned long flags; > + bool ret = true; > + > + spin_lock_irqsave(&nh->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(&nh->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
| |