On Sat 05-12-15 10:55:42, Geliang Tang wrote:
> 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.
I dunno. Your change is technically correct of course. I find the exit
condition easier to read without your patch though.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
--
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>