On 2017/8/8 下午12:12, Byungchul Park wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 07, 2017 at 06:18:35PM +0800, Coly Li wrote:
>> On 2017/8/7 下午4:38, Byungchul Park wrote:
>>> Although llist provides proper APIs, they are not used. Make them used.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@xxxxxxx
>> Only have a question about why not using llist_for_each_entry(), it's
>
> Hello,
>
> The reason is to keep the original logic unchanged. The logic already
> does as if it's the safe version against removal.
>
>> still OK with llist_for_each_entry_safe(). The rested part is good to me.
>>
>> Acked-by: Coly Li <colyli@xxxxxxx>
>>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/md/bcache/closure.c | 17 +++--------------
>>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/md/bcache/closure.c b/drivers/md/bcache/closure.c
>>> index 864e673..1841d03 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/md/bcache/closure.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/md/bcache/closure.c
>>> @@ -64,27 +64,16 @@ void closure_put(struct closure *cl)
>>> void __closure_wake_up(struct closure_waitlist *wait_list)
>>> {
>>> struct llist_node *list;
>>> - struct closure *cl;
>>> + struct closure *cl, *t;
>>> struct llist_node *reverse = NULL;
>>>
>>> list = llist_del_all(&wait_list->list);
>>>
>>> /* We first reverse the list to preserve FIFO ordering and fairness */
>>> -
>>> - while (list) {
>>> - struct llist_node *t = list;
>>> - list = llist_next(list);
>>> -
>>> - t->next = reverse;
>>> - reverse = t;
>>> - }
>>> + reverse = llist_reverse_order(list);
>>>
>>> /* Then do the wakeups */
>>> -
>>> - while (reverse) {
>>> - cl = container_of(reverse, struct closure, list);
>>> - reverse = llist_next(reverse);
>>> -
>>> + 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
'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 :-)
--
Coly Li
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
