Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2015 17:21:03 +0100
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To: Geliang Tang <geliangtang@163.com>
Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>, cgroups@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/memcontrol.c: use list_{first,next}_entry
Message-ID: <20151207162102.GC20774@dhcp22.suse.cz>
References: <9e62e3006561653fcbf0c49cf0b9c2b653a8ed0e.1449152124.git.geliangtang@163.com>
 <20151203162718.GK9264@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <20151205025542.GB9812@bogon>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20151205025542.GB9812@bogon>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 944
Lines: 24

On Sat 05-12-15 10:55:42, Geliang Tang wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 05:27:18PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Thu 03-12-15 22:16:55, Geliang Tang wrote:
> > > To make the intention clearer, use list_{first,next}_entry instead
> > > of list_entry.
> > 
> > Does this really help readability? This function simply uncharges the
> > given list of pages. Why cannot we simply use list_for_each_entry
> > instead...
> 
> I have tested it, list_for_each_entry can't work. Dose it mean that my
> patch is OK? Or please give me some other advices.

I dunno. Your change is technically correct of course. I find the exit
condition easier to read without your patch though.

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/