On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 01:28:39PM +0800, Coly Li wrote:
> >>> + llist_for_each_entry_safe(cl, t, reverse, list) {
> >>
> >> Just wondering why not using llist_for_each_entry(), or you use the
> >> _safe version on purpose ?
> >
> > If I use llist_for_each_entry(), then it would change the original
> > behavior. Is it ok?
> >
>
> I feel llist_for_each_entry() keeps the original behavior, and variable
Ah.. I see. Then.. Can I change it into non-safe version? Is it still ok
with non-safe one? I will change it at the next spin, if yes.
> 't' can be removed. Anyway, either llist_for_each_entry() or
> llist_for_each_entry_safe() works correctly and well here. Any one you
> use is OK to me, thanks for your informative reply :-)
I rather appriciate it.
Thank you,
Byungchul
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-bcache" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
