Hi Jay From: Jay Rolette [mailto:role...@infiniteio.com] Sent: Monday, June 15, 2015 8:43 PM To: Zhang, Helin Cc: dev at dpdk.org Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/3] kni: minor opto
On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 9:07 PM, Zhang, Helin <helin.zhang at intel.com<mailto:helin.zhang at intel.com>> wrote: Would it be better to modify the similar thing in kni_ioctl_create()? That one doesn't need to use the "safe" version of list_for_each_entry() either, but it isn't in the packet processing path so the minor performance improvement doesn't really matter. Yes, your patches are OK for me. I have acked it. - Helin - Helin > -----Original Message----- > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org<mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org>] On > Behalf Of Jay Rolette > Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2015 3:19 AM > To: dev at dpdk.org<mailto:dev at dpdk.org> > Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/3] kni: minor opto > > Don't need the 'safe' version of list_for_each_entry() if you aren't deleting > from > the list as you iterate over it > > Signed-off-by: Jay Rolette <rolette at infiniteio.com<mailto:rolette at > infiniteio.com>> > --- > lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/kni/kni_misc.c | 5 ++--- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/kni/kni_misc.c > b/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/kni/kni_misc.c > index 1935d32..312f196 100644 > --- a/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/kni/kni_misc.c > +++ b/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/kni/kni_misc.c > @@ -213,13 +213,12 @@ static int > kni_thread_single(void *unused) > { > int j; > - struct kni_dev *dev, *n; > + struct kni_dev *dev; > > while (!kthread_should_stop()) { > down_read(&kni_list_lock); > for (j = 0; j < KNI_RX_LOOP_NUM; j++) { > - list_for_each_entry_safe(dev, n, > - &kni_list_head, list) { > + list_for_each_entry(dev, &kni_list_head, list) { > #ifdef RTE_KNI_VHOST > kni_chk_vhost_rx(dev); > #else > -- > 2.3.2 (Apple Git-55)