On Mon, 2010-07-12 at 03:35 -0700, Bart Van Assche wrote: > On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 12:20 PM, Pradeep Satyanarayana > <prade...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > > Bart Van Assche wrote: > >> On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 6:57 AM, Pradeep Satyanarayana > >> <prade...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > >>> I realize that the following patch: > >>> > >>> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/97243/ > >>> > >>> is queued in your backlog of patches and unlikely that it will go into > >>> 2.6.35. > >>> What are the chances that it will make it into 2.6.36? This patch has > >>> fixed a > >>> a rarely seen crash and we would like it to go upstream ASAP. > >> > >> The following comment was made on that patch by Ralph Campbell (see > >> also http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org/msg03125.html): > >> > >> "Quite right. I should also use list_for_each_entry_safe(). I will fix > >> this." > >> > >> This makes me wonder whether version three of this patch can go in > >> unmodified ? > > > > There was a version 4 that followed. That was what I was referring to. > > Thanks for the info -- I had missed version four of that patch. Now > that I had a look at it, why does the comment above > ipoib_cm_flush_path() say that it removes all entries while the loop > inside that function is stopped after the first entry has been found > and removed ? Why does that function use list_for_each_entry_safe() > while only a single entry is removed ? > > Bart.
There is only one matching entry on the list at any given time so I guess list_for_each_entry_safe() isn't required. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
