Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CGME20201231015213epcms2p5ef76aa6b26ab74e045a86f6a13b31d51@epcms2p5>
 <20201231015213epcms2p5ef76aa6b26ab74e045a86f6a13b31d51@epcms2p5> <CAD+ocbwjVsiPNnp3RShN7eRDm5ZRDMwgk5uPO1at-KeX-osyqg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAD+ocbwjVsiPNnp3RShN7eRDm5ZRDMwgk5uPO1at-KeX-osyqg@mail.gmail.com>
From:   harshad shirwadkar <harshadshirwadkar@gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 8 Jan 2021 15:00:37 -0800
Message-ID: <CAD+ocbwuZ-y--YoC=1khtaQ1A2oYqyQtKGsvVHNvngzsuN0ByA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ext4: Change list_for_each to list_for_each_entry
To:     daejun7.park@samsung.com
Cc:     "tytso@mit.edu" <tytso@mit.edu>,
        "adilger.kernel@dilger.ca" <adilger.kernel@dilger.ca>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org" <linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

Hey Daejun,

I was taking a look at this again, and just noticed one quick thing:

On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 1:56 PM harshad shirwadkar
<harshadshirwadkar@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Looks good to me, thanks!
>
> Reviewed-by: Harshad Shirwadkar <harshadshirwadkar@gmail.com>
>
> On Wed, Dec 30, 2020 at 5:56 PM Daejun Park <daejun7.park@samsung.com> wrote:
> >
> > list_for_each + list_entry can be changed to list_for_each_entry
> > It reduces number of variables and lines.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Daejun Park <daejun7.park@samsung.com>
> > ---
> >  fs/ext4/fast_commit.c | 7 ++-----
> >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/ext4/fast_commit.c b/fs/ext4/fast_commit.c
> > index 5b6bb3ef0f33..dc58471971db 100644
> > --- a/fs/ext4/fast_commit.c
> > +++ b/fs/ext4/fast_commit.c
> > @@ -915,13 +915,11 @@ static int ext4_fc_submit_inode_data_all(journal_t *journal)
> >         struct super_block *sb = (struct super_block *)(journal->j_private);
> >         struct ext4_sb_info *sbi = EXT4_SB(sb);
> >         struct ext4_inode_info *ei;
> > -       struct list_head *pos;
> >         int ret = 0;
> >
> >         spin_lock(&sbi->s_fc_lock);
> >         ext4_set_mount_flag(sb, EXT4_MF_FC_COMMITTING);
> > -       list_for_each(pos, &sbi->s_fc_q[FC_Q_MAIN]) {
> > -               ei = list_entry(pos, struct ext4_inode_info, i_fc_list);
> > +       list_for_each_entry(ei, &sbi->s_fc_q[FC_Q_MAIN], i_fc_list) {
> >                 ext4_set_inode_state(&ei->vfs_inode, EXT4_STATE_FC_COMMITTING);
> >                 while (atomic_read(&ei->i_fc_updates)) {
> >                         DEFINE_WAIT(wait);
> > @@ -1099,8 +1097,7 @@ static int ext4_fc_perform_commit(journal_t *journal)
> >                 goto out;
> >         }
> >
> > -       list_for_each(pos, &sbi->s_fc_q[FC_Q_MAIN]) {
> > -               iter = list_entry(pos, struct ext4_inode_info, i_fc_list);
Variable "pos" isn't used anymore after this patch. You removed it for
the ext4_fc_submit_inode_data_all() function, but missed removing it
in this function. That's throwing me a warning.

Thanks,
Harshad

> > +       list_for_each_entry(iter, &sbi->s_fc_q[FC_Q_MAIN], i_fc_list) {
> >                 inode = &iter->vfs_inode;
> >                 if (!ext4_test_inode_state(inode, EXT4_STATE_FC_COMMITTING))
> >                         continue;
> > --
> > 2.25.1
> >