> > If I just see
> >
> >for (pos = list_entry((head)->next, typeof(*pos), member),
> >n = list_entry(pos->member.next, typeof(*pos), member);
> > &pos->member != (head);
> > pos = n, n = list_entry(n->member.next, typeof(*n), member))
> >
> > then what am
On Wed, 30 May 2007 16:42:41 -0700, Roland Dreier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If I just see
>
> for (pos = list_entry((head)->next, typeof(*pos), member),
> n = list_entry(pos->member.next, typeof(*pos), member);
>&pos->member != (head);
>pos = n, n =
> > > The negative is the sheer number of helper functions in list.h.
> > > Personally,
> > > I find it difficult to retain a working knowledge of them. Iterators are
> > > particularly nasty that way. I'm thinking about dropping all of these
> > > list_for_each_with_murky_argument_requiremen
On Wed, 30 May 2007 16:14:01 -0700, Roland Dreier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The negative is the sheer number of helper functions in list.h. Personally,
> > I find it difficult to retain a working knowledge of them. Iterators are
> > particularly nasty that way. I'm thinking about dropping
> The negative is the sheer number of helper functions in list.h. Personally,
> I find it difficult to retain a working knowledge of them. Iterators are
> particularly nasty that way. I'm thinking about dropping all of these
> list_for_each_with_murky_argument_requirements_and_odd_side_effects(
On Thu, 31 May 2007 02:44:17 +0530, "Satyam Sharma" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > - list_for_each(p, &sc->luns) {
> > > - lun = list_entry(p, struct ub_lun, link);
> > > + list_for_each_entry(lun, &sc->luns, link) {
> > This patch straddles the border of acceptable. The poi
Hi Pete,
On 5/31/07, Pete Zaitcev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, 30 May 2007 10:47:52 +0200, Matthias Kaehlcke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> @@ -1608,8 +1605,7 @@ static void ub_reset_task(struct work_struct *work)
> spin_lock_irqsave(sc->lock, flags);
> sc->reset = 0;
> ta
El Wed, May 30, 2007 at 12:38:40PM -0700 Pete Zaitcev ha dit:
> On Wed, 30 May 2007 10:47:52 +0200, Matthias Kaehlcke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > @@ -1608,8 +1605,7 @@ static void ub_reset_task(struct work_struct *work)
> > spin_lock_irqsave(sc->lock, flags);
> > sc->reset = 0;
>
On Wed, 30 May 2007 10:47:52 +0200, Matthias Kaehlcke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> @@ -1608,8 +1605,7 @@ static void ub_reset_task(struct work_struct *work)
> spin_lock_irqsave(sc->lock, flags);
> sc->reset = 0;
> tasklet_schedule(&sc->tasklet);
> - list_for_each(p, &sc->luns
Low performance USB storage driver: Use list_for_each_entry() instead
of list_for_each()
Signed-off-by: Matthias Kaehlcke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
diff --git a/drivers/block/ub.c b/drivers/block/ub.c
index 746a118..18c8b6c 100644
--- a/drivers/block/ub.c
+++ b/drivers/block/ub.c
@@ -1547,10 +1547,
10 matches
Mail list logo