Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753144AbdHGL1T (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Aug 2017 07:27:19 -0400 Received: from server.coly.li ([162.144.45.48]:52076 "EHLO server.coly.li" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752960AbdHGL1R (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Aug 2017 07:27:17 -0400 X-Greylist: delayed 4114 seconds by postgrey-1.27 at vger.kernel.org; Mon, 07 Aug 2017 07:27:17 EDT Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH] bcache: Don't reinvent the wheel but use existing llist API To: Byungchul Park Cc: kent.overstreet@gmail.com, shli@kernel.org, linux-bcache@vger.kernel.org, linux-raid@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@lge.com References: <1502095121-14337-1-git-send-email-byungchul.park@lge.com> From: Coly Li Message-ID: Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2017 18:18:35 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1502095121-14337-1-git-send-email-byungchul.park@lge.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - server.coly.li X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - vger.kernel.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - coly.li X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: server.coly.li: authenticated_id: i@coly.li X-Authenticated-Sender: server.coly.li: i@coly.li X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1611 Lines: 58 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 > --- > 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