On Mon, Aug 07, 2017 at 06:18:35PM +0800, Coly Li wrote:

On 2017/8/7 下午4:38, Byungchul Park wrote:

quoted

Although llist provides proper APIs, they are not used. Make them used.

Signed-off-by: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com

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 <redacted>

quoted

---
 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?

Thank you,
Byungchul