From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@in.ibm.com>,
Anton Arapov <anton@redhat.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@hitachi.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] uprobes: simplify the usage of uprobe->pending_list
Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 20:10:06 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120530181006.GA19471@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120530174858.GN15587@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
On 05/30, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
>
> * Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> [2012-05-30 18:58:46]:
>
> > uprobe->pending_list is only used to create the temporary list,
> > it has no meaning after we drop uprobes_mmap_hash(inode).
> >
> > No need to initialize this node or remove it from tmp_list, and
> > we can use list_for_each_entry().
>
>
> I actually dont see the patch that removed the uprobe->pending_list.
I think you misread this cleanup. Or may be I misunderstood you...
The patch only removes the unnecessary INIT_LIST_HEAD/list_del and
changes the code to use list_for_each_entry (_safe is not needed).
list_add() doesn't need the initialized entry, and there is no need
to "cleanup" ->pending_list after list_for_each().
However. If you dislike this change, feel free to nack it.. Cleanups
are always subjective, I won't argue if you prefer the current code.
Oleg.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-05-30 18:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-05-30 16:57 [PATCH 0/3] uprobes: misc minor changes Oleg Nesterov
2012-05-30 16:58 ` [PATCH 1/3] uprobes: install_breakpoint() should fail if is_swbp_insn() == T Oleg Nesterov
2012-05-30 17:28 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-05-30 17:37 ` Srikar Dronamraju
2012-05-30 17:49 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-05-30 17:54 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-05-30 18:03 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-05-30 18:04 ` Srikar Dronamraju
2012-05-30 18:21 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-05-31 18:53 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-06-01 15:53 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-06-01 16:33 ` Srikar Dronamraju
2012-06-01 17:20 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-06-01 18:31 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-06-02 18:21 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-06-01 16:47 ` Srikar Dronamraju
2012-06-01 18:38 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-05-31 12:15 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-05-31 12:54 ` Srikar Dronamraju
2012-05-30 16:58 ` [PATCH 2/3] uprobes: remove the unnecessary initialization in add_utask() Oleg Nesterov
2012-05-30 16:58 ` [PATCH 3/3] uprobes: simplify the usage of uprobe->pending_list Oleg Nesterov
2012-05-30 17:48 ` Srikar Dronamraju
2012-05-30 18:10 ` Oleg Nesterov [this message]
2012-05-30 18:23 ` Srikar Dronamraju
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20120530181006.GA19471@redhat.com \
--to=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=ananth@in.ibm.com \
--cc=anton@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=masami.hiramatsu.pt@hitachi.com \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.