Although llist provides proper APIs, they are not used. Make them used.
Signed-off-by: Byungchul Park <[email protected]>
---
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) {
closure_set_waiting(cl, 0);
closure_sub(cl, CLOSURE_WAITING + 1);
}
--
1.9.1
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 <[email protected]
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 <[email protected]>
> ---
> 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
On Mon, Aug 07, 2017 at 06:18:35PM +0800, Coly Li wrote:
> 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 <[email protected]
> Only have a question about why not using llist_for_each_entry(), it's
Hello,
The reason is to keep the original logic unchanged. The logic already
does as if it's the safe version against removal.
> still OK with llist_for_each_entry_safe(). The rested part is good to me.
>
> Acked-by: Coly Li <[email protected]>
>
> > ---
> > 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 ?
If I use llist_for_each_entry(), then it would change the original
behavior. Is it ok?
Thank you,
Byungchul
On 2017/8/8 下午12:12, Byungchul Park wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 07, 2017 at 06:18:35PM +0800, Coly Li wrote:
>> 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 <[email protected]
>> Only have a question about why not using llist_for_each_entry(), it's
>
> Hello,
>
> The reason is to keep the original logic unchanged. The logic already
> does as if it's the safe version against removal.
>
>> still OK with llist_for_each_entry_safe(). The rested part is good to me.
>>
>> Acked-by: Coly Li <[email protected]>
>>
>>> ---
>>> 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 ?
>
> If I use llist_for_each_entry(), then it would change the original
> behavior. Is it ok?
>
I feel llist_for_each_entry() keeps the original behavior, and variable
't' can be removed. Anyway, either llist_for_each_entry() or
llist_for_each_entry_safe() works correctly and well here. Any one you
use is OK to me, thanks for your informative reply :-)
--
Coly Li
On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 01:28:39PM +0800, Coly Li wrote:
> >>> + 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 ?
> >
> > If I use llist_for_each_entry(), then it would change the original
> > behavior. Is it ok?
> >
>
> I feel llist_for_each_entry() keeps the original behavior, and variable
Ah.. I see. Then.. Can I change it into non-safe version? Is it still ok
with non-safe one? I will change it at the next spin, if yes.
> 't' can be removed. Anyway, either llist_for_each_entry() or
> llist_for_each_entry_safe() works correctly and well here. Any one you
> use is OK to me, thanks for your informative reply :-)
I rather appriciate it.
Thank you,
Byungchul
On 2017/8/8 下午2:00, Byungchul Park wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 01:28:39PM +0800, Coly Li wrote:
>>>>> + 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 ?
>>>
>>> If I use llist_for_each_entry(), then it would change the original
>>> behavior. Is it ok?
>>>
>>
>> I feel llist_for_each_entry() keeps the original behavior, and variable
>
> Ah.. I see. Then.. Can I change it into non-safe version? Is it still ok
> with non-safe one? I will change it at the next spin, if yes.
>
>> 't' can be removed. Anyway, either llist_for_each_entry() or
>> llist_for_each_entry_safe() works correctly and well here. Any one you
>> use is OK to me, thanks for your informative reply :-)
>
> I rather appriciate it.
>
Yes, please. And you have my Acked-by :-)
--
Coly Li
On 8.08.2017 09:00, Byungchul Park wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 01:28:39PM +0800, Coly Li wrote:
>>>>> + 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 ?
>>>
>>> If I use llist_for_each_entry(), then it would change the original
>>> behavior. Is it ok?
Generally, _safe versions of list primitives is used when you are going
to perform removal in the iteration. I haven't looked at the code in
bcache but if it's removing entries from the list then _safe version is
required. If you are only iterating - then non-safe version is fine.
>>>
>>
>> I feel llist_for_each_entry() keeps the original behavior, and variable
>
> Ah.. I see. Then.. Can I change it into non-safe version? Is it still ok
> with non-safe one? I will change it at the next spin, if yes.
>
>> 't' can be removed. Anyway, either llist_for_each_entry() or
>> llist_for_each_entry_safe() works correctly and well here. Any one you
>> use is OK to me, thanks for your informative reply :-)
>
> I rather appriciate it.
>
> Thank you,
> Byungchul
>
On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 09:39:09AM +0300, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>
>
> On 8.08.2017 09:00, Byungchul Park wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 01:28:39PM +0800, Coly Li wrote:
> >>>>> + 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 ?
> >>>
> >>> If I use llist_for_each_entry(), then it would change the original
> >>> behavior. Is it ok?
>
> Generally, _safe versions of list primitives is used when you are going
> to perform removal in the iteration. I haven't looked at the code in
> bcache but if it's removing entries from the list then _safe version is
> required. If you are only iterating - then non-safe version is fine.
Thank you~ :)