On Tue, Dec 03, 2013 at 02:04:18PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Mon, 2013-12-02 at 20:12 +0100, Florian Meier wrote: > > +static void bcm2835_dma_free(struct bcm2835_dmadev *od) > > +{ > > + while (!list_empty(&od->ddev.channels)) { > > + struct bcm2835_chan *c = list_first_entry(&od->ddev.channels, > > + struct bcm2835_chan, vc.chan.device_node); > > + > > list_for_each_entry_safe() suits well here. > > > + list_del(&c->vc.chan.device_node); > > + tasklet_kill(&c->vc.task); > > + } For such a loop, where we're deleting all entries in a list, list_for_each_entry_safe() is a little heavier than necessary. This is how the code would look: static void bcm2835_dma_free(struct bcm2835_dmadev *od) { struct bcm2835_chan *c, *next; list_for_each_entry_safe(c, next, &od->ddev.channels, vc.chan.device_node) { list_del(&c->vc.chan.device_node); tasklet_kill(&c->vc.task); } I see very little gain in this approach. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html