On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 05:27:18PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 03-12-15 22:16:55, Geliang Tang wrote:
> > To make the intention clearer, use list_{first,next}_entry instead
> > of list_entry.
>
> Does this really help readability? This function simply uncharges the
> given list of pages. Why cannot we simply use list_for_each_entry
> instead...
I have tested it, list_for_each_entry can't work. Dose it mean that my
patch is OK? Or please give me some other advices.
Thanks.
- Geliang
> > Signed-off-by: Geliang Tang <geliangtang@xxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > mm/memcontrol.c | 9 +++------
> > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
> > index 79a29d5..a6301ea 100644
> > --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
> > +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
> > @@ -5395,16 +5395,12 @@ static void uncharge_list(struct list_head *page_list)
> > unsigned long nr_file = 0;
> > unsigned long nr_huge = 0;
> > unsigned long pgpgout = 0;
> > - struct list_head *next;
> > struct page *page;
> >
> > - next = page_list->next;
> > + page = list_first_entry(page_list, struct page, lru);
> > do {
> > unsigned int nr_pages = 1;
> >
> > - page = list_entry(next, struct page, lru);
> > - next = page->lru.next;
> > -
> > VM_BUG_ON_PAGE(PageLRU(page), page);
> > VM_BUG_ON_PAGE(page_count(page), page);
> >
> > @@ -5440,7 +5436,8 @@ static void uncharge_list(struct list_head *page_list)
> > page->mem_cgroup = NULL;
> >
> > pgpgout++;
> > - } while (next != page_list);
> > + } while (!list_is_last(&page->lru, page_list) &&
> > + (page = list_next_entry(page, lru)));
> >
> > if (memcg)
> > uncharge_batch(memcg, pgpgout, nr_anon, nr_file,
> > --
> > 2.5.0
> >
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>