On Wed, 12 Jan 2022, Martinez, Ricardo wrote:

On 1/12/2022 11:24 AM, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:

quoted

On Wed, 12 Jan 2022, Martinez, Ricardo wrote:

quoted

On 1/12/2022 10:16 AM, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:

quoted

On Wed, 12 Jan 2022, Andy Shevchenko wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 04:24:52PM +0200, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:

quoted

On Wed, 12 Jan 2022, Andy Shevchenko wrote:

quoted

On Tue, Jan 11, 2022 at 08:55:58PM -0800, Martinez, Ricardo wrote:

quoted

On 12/16/2021 3:08 AM, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:

quoted

On Mon, 6 Dec 2021, Ricardo Martinez wrote:

quoted

+	if (req->entry.next == &ring->gpd_ring)
+		return list_first_entry(&ring->gpd_ring,
struct
cldma_request, entry);
+
+	return list_next_entry(req, entry);

...

quoted

quoted

quoted

+	if (req->entry.prev == &ring->gpd_ring)
+		return list_last_entry(&ring->gpd_ring, struct
cldma_request, entry);
+
+	return list_prev_entry(req, entry);

...

quoted

quoted

Wouldn't these two seems generic enough to warrant adding
something like
list_next/prev_entry_circular(...) to list.h?

Agree, in the upcoming version I'm planning to include something
like this
to list.h as suggested:

I think you mean for next and prev, i.o.w. two helpers, correct?

quoted

#define list_next_entry_circular(pos, ptr, member) \

One thing I missed earlier, the sigrature should instead of ptr have
head:
#define list_next_entry_circular(pos, head, member)

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

      ((pos)->member.next == (ptr) ? \

I believe this is list_entry_is_head().

It takes .next so it's not the same as list_entry_is_head() and
list_entry_is_last() doesn't exist.

But we have list_last_entry(). So, what about

list_last_entry() == pos ? first : next;

and counterpart

list_first_entry() == pos ? last : prev;

?

Yes, although now that I think it more, using them implies the head
element has to be always accessed. It might be marginally cache
friendlier
to use list_entry_is_head you originally suggested but get the next
entry
first:
({
	typeof(pos) next__ = list_next_entry(pos, member); \
	!list_entry_is_head(next__, head, member) ? next__ :
list_next_entry(next__, member);
})
(This was written directly to email, entirely untested).

Here, the head element would only get accessed when we really need to
walk
through it.

I'm not sure if list_next_entry() will work for the last element, what
about
using list_is_last()?

Why wouldn't it? E.g., list_for_each_entry() does it for the last entry
before terminating the for loop.

I wasn't sure about using container_of() on the head of the list, but I see
that it is not a problem.

Would that still be preferred over the list_is_last() approach?

I think list_is_last() is fine if that's what you want to use.
...I missed earlier the fact that you were referring to something else 
than list_entry_is_last thanks to these n similarly named functions :-).

-- 
 i.