On Tue, Dec 03, 2013 at 02:04:18PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-12-02 at 20:12 +0100, Florian Meier wrote:
> > +static void bcm2835_dma_free(struct bcm2835_dmadev *od)
> > +{
> > + while (!list_empty(&od->ddev.channels)) {
> > + struct bcm2835_chan *c = list_first_entry(&od->ddev.channels,
> > + struct bcm2835_chan, vc.chan.device_node);
> > +
>
> list_for_each_entry_safe() suits well here.
>
> > + list_del(&c->vc.chan.device_node);
> > + tasklet_kill(&c->vc.task);
> > + }
For such a loop, where we're deleting all entries in a list,
list_for_each_entry_safe() is a little heavier than necessary. This
is how the code would look:
static void bcm2835_dma_free(struct bcm2835_dmadev *od)
{
struct bcm2835_chan *c, *next;
list_for_each_entry_safe(c, next, &od->ddev.channels,
vc.chan.device_node) {
list_del(&c->vc.chan.device_node);
tasklet_kill(&c->vc.task);
}
I see very little gain in this approach.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
