>>> On 03.06.19 at 03:33, <[email protected]> wrote:
> 'notifier_block' can be replaced with 'list_head' when used for
> 'notifier_head', this make the a little more clear.
I guess you mean "... makes the code a little ..."?
> @@ -71,16 +71,16 @@ int notifier_call_chain(
> {
> int ret = NOTIFY_DONE;
> struct list_head *cursor;
> - struct notifier_block *nb;
> + struct notifier_block *nb = NULL;
> bool_t reverse = !!(val & NOTIFY_REVERSE);
>
> - cursor = &(pcursor && *pcursor ? *pcursor : &nh->head)->chain;
> + cursor = (pcursor && *pcursor ? &(*pcursor)->chain : &nh->head);
The outermost parentheses are now not really needed anymore.
> --- a/xen/include/xen/notifier.h
> +++ b/xen/include/xen/notifier.h
> @@ -29,13 +29,12 @@ struct notifier_block {
> };
>
> struct notifier_head {
> - struct notifier_block head;
> + struct list_head head;
> };
>
> -#define NOTIFIER_INIT(name) { .head.chain = LIST_HEAD_INIT(name.head.chain) }
Note the blanks immediately inside the figure braces - ...
> +#define NOTIFIER_HEAD(name)
> \
> + struct notifier_head name = {.head = LIST_HEAD_INIT(name.head)}
... please don't break such style aspects, unless you know
it is something that needs fixing (for being in violation of our
style guidelines).
Jan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
