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.p...@lge.com
Only have a question about why not using llist_for_each_entry(), it's
still OK with llist_for_each_entry_safe(). The rested part is good to me.
Acked-by: Coly Li <col...@suse.de>
> ---
> 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 ?
> closure_set_waiting(cl, 0);
> closure_sub(cl, CLOSURE_WAITING + 1);
> }
>
--
Coly Li
