Re: [RESEND PATCH] bcache: Don't reinvent the wheel but use existing llist API
From: Coly Li <hidden>
Date: 2017-08-08 05:28:53
Also in:
linux-bcache, lkml
On 2017/8/8 下午12:12, Byungchul Park wrote:
On Mon, Aug 07, 2017 at 06:18:35PM +0800, Coly Li wrote:quoted
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.comOnly have a question about why not using llist_for_each_entry(), it'sHello, The reason is to keep the original logic unchanged. The logic already does as if it's the safe version against removal.quoted
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?
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