2013/1/21, Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk.kim@xxxxxxxxxxx>: > 2013-01-21 (월), 00:32 -0800, Dmitry Torokhov: >> On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 06:02:58PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: >> > This is calling list_del() inside a loop which is a problem when we try >> > move to the next item on the list. I've converted it to use the _safe >> > version. And also, as a cleanup, I've converted it to use >> > list_for_each_entry instead of list_for_each. >> > >> > Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> >> > --- >> > Static analysis stuff. Untested. Please review carefully. >> >> Makes sense to me. >> >> Reviewed-by: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@xxxxxxxxx> >> > > No doubt, applied. > Thanks, I agree in cases – where we will have chances of parallel access and modification to the linked we should use list_for_each_entry_safe() But my point was related with this code change case in the patch. We will have path like this: f2fs_fill_super->recover_fsync_data->destroy_fsync_dnodes() >From this calling path – there can only be a single caller at any given time. So, we will not have the case of having parallel access to the list which is local to recover_fsync_data() and destroyed on exit from this function. >From the real issue point of view – this does not looks convincing to me why expensive _safe fucntion should used. Thanks. > > -- > Jaegeuk Kim > Samsung > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
