forked from Minki/linux
2055da9738
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> |
||
---|---|---|
.. | ||
autogroup.c | ||
autogroup.h | ||
clock.c | ||
completion.c | ||
core.c | ||
cpuacct.c | ||
cpuacct.h | ||
cpudeadline.c | ||
cpudeadline.h | ||
cpufreq_schedutil.c | ||
cpufreq.c | ||
cpupri.c | ||
cpupri.h | ||
cputime.c | ||
deadline.c | ||
debug.c | ||
fair.c | ||
features.h | ||
idle_task.c | ||
idle.c | ||
loadavg.c | ||
Makefile | ||
rt.c | ||
sched-pelt.h | ||
sched.h | ||
stats.c | ||
stats.h | ||
stop_task.c | ||
swait.c | ||
topology.c | ||
wait_bit.c | ||
wait.c |