On Fri, Jul 05, 2013 at 04:41:00PM -0400, Jörn Engel wrote:
On Mon, 3 June 2013 13:28:03 -0400, Joern Engel wrote:
A purely janitorial patchset. A fairly common pattern is to take a
list, remove every object from it and do something with this object -
usually kfree() some variant. A
On Mon, 3 June 2013 13:28:03 -0400, Joern Engel wrote:
A purely janitorial patchset. A fairly common pattern is to take a
list, remove every object from it and do something with this object -
usually kfree() some variant. A stupid grep identified roughly 300
instances, with many more
On 05.06.2013 04:09, Jörn Engel wrote:
On Tue, 4 June 2013 14:44:35 -0400, Jörn Engel wrote:
Or while_list_drain?
I'm fine with while_list_drain, although a name starting with list_
like all other list macros would be nice. How about just list_drain?
The next question is where to put it in the
On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 08:53:50AM +0200, Arne Jansen wrote:
On 05.06.2013 04:09, Jörn Engel wrote:
On Tue, 4 June 2013 14:44:35 -0400, Jörn Engel wrote:
Or while_list_drain?
I'm fine with while_list_drain, although a name starting with list_
like all other list macros would be nice.
On Mon, Jun 03, 2013 at 03:55:55PM -0400, J??rn Engel wrote:
Actually, when I compare the two invocations, I prefer the
list_for_each_entry_del() variant over list_pop_entry().
while ((ref = list_pop_entry(prefs, struct __prelim_ref, list))) {
list_for_each_entry_del(ref,
Quoting Christoph Hellwig (2013-06-04 10:48:56)
On Mon, Jun 03, 2013 at 03:55:55PM -0400, J??rn Engel wrote:
Actually, when I compare the two invocations, I prefer the
list_for_each_entry_del() variant over list_pop_entry().
while ((ref = list_pop_entry(prefs, struct
On 06/04/13 16:53, Chris Mason wrote:
Quoting Christoph Hellwig (2013-06-04 10:48:56)
On Mon, Jun 03, 2013 at 03:55:55PM -0400, J??rn Engel wrote:
Actually, when I compare the two invocations, I prefer the
list_for_each_entry_del() variant over list_pop_entry().
while ((ref =
On Tue, 4 June 2013 22:09:13 +0200, Arne Jansen wrote:
On 06/04/13 16:53, Chris Mason wrote:
Quoting Christoph Hellwig (2013-06-04 10:48:56)
On Mon, Jun 03, 2013 at 03:55:55PM -0400, J??rn Engel wrote:
Actually, when I compare the two invocations, I prefer the
list_for_each_entry_del()
On Tue, 4 June 2013 14:44:35 -0400, Jörn Engel wrote:
Or while_list_drain?
Not sure if the silence is approval or lack of interest, but a new set
of patches is posted. By playing around with the implementation a
bit, I have actually found a variant that makes the object code
shrink. Not one
A purely janitorial patchset. A fairly common pattern is to take a
list, remove every object from it and do something with this object -
usually kfree() some variant. A stupid grep identified roughly 300
instances, with many more hidden behind more complicated patterns to
achieve the same end
On Mon, 3 June 2013 13:28:03 -0400, Joern Engel wrote:
Drawback is that object size is growing. I think an ideal compiler
should be able to optimize all the overhead away, but 4.7 just isn't
there yet. Or maybe I just messed up - patches are only
compile-tested after all. Comments/ideas
On Mon, 3 June 2013 15:36:47 -0400, Jörn Engel wrote:
On Mon, 3 June 2013 13:49:30 -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
I can't say I like the structure.
A list_pop that removes and entry from the head or returns NULL if the
list is empty would lead to nice while loops that are obviously
I can't say I like the structure.
A list_pop that removes and entry from the head or returns NULL if the
list is empty would lead to nice while loops that are obviously
readable instead.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-btrfs in
the body of a message to
13 matches
Mail list logo
