Re: [PATCH 1/4] trace_workqueue: use list_for_each_entry() instead of list_for_each_entry_safe()

[Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>]

On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 02:58:26PM +0800, Zhaolei wrote:
> No need to use list_for_each_entry_safe() in iteration without delete node,
> we use list_for_each_entry() instead.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Zhao Lei <zhaolei@cn.fujitsu.com>
> ---
>  kernel/trace/trace_workqueue.c |   10 ++++------
>  1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/trace/trace_workqueue.c b/kernel/trace/trace_workqueue.c
> index 984b917..934b27c 100644
> --- a/kernel/trace/trace_workqueue.c
> +++ b/kernel/trace/trace_workqueue.c
> @@ -47,12 +47,11 @@ probe_workqueue_insertion(struct task_struct *wq_thread,
>  			  struct work_struct *work)
>  {
>  	int cpu = cpumask_first(&wq_thread->cpus_allowed);
> -	struct cpu_workqueue_stats *node, *next;
> +	struct cpu_workqueue_stats *node;
>  	unsigned long flags;
>  
>  	spin_lock_irqsave(&workqueue_cpu_stat(cpu)->lock, flags);
> -	list_for_each_entry_safe(node, next, &workqueue_cpu_stat(cpu)->list,
> -							list) {
> +	list_for_each_entry(node, &workqueue_cpu_stat(cpu)->list, list) {
>  		if (node->pid == wq_thread->pid) {
>  			atomic_inc(&node->inserted);
>  			goto found;
> @@ -69,12 +68,11 @@ probe_workqueue_execution(struct task_struct *wq_thread,
>  			  struct work_struct *work)
>  {
>  	int cpu = cpumask_first(&wq_thread->cpus_allowed);
> -	struct cpu_workqueue_stats *node, *next;
> +	struct cpu_workqueue_stats *node;
>  	unsigned long flags;
>  
>  	spin_lock_irqsave(&workqueue_cpu_stat(cpu)->lock, flags);
> -	list_for_each_entry_safe(node, next, &workqueue_cpu_stat(cpu)->list,
> -							list) {
> +	list_for_each_entry(node, &workqueue_cpu_stat(cpu)->list, list) {
>  		if (node->pid == wq_thread->pid) {
>  			node->executed++;
>  			goto found;


Thanks, looks good.

Acked-by: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>