From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Byungchul Park Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH] bcache: Don't reinvent the wheel but use existing llist API Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2017 15:00:56 +0900 Message-ID: <20170808060056.GS20323@X58A-UD3R> References: <1502095121-14337-1-git-send-email-byungchul.park@lge.com> <20170808041233.GR20323@X58A-UD3R> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Coly Li 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 List-Id: linux-bcache@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 01:28:39PM +0800, Coly Li wrote: > >>> + 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 ? > > > > If I use llist_for_each_entry(), then it would change the original > > behavior. Is it ok? > > > > I feel llist_for_each_entry() keeps the original behavior, and variable Ah.. I see. Then.. Can I change it into non-safe version? Is it still ok with non-safe one? I will change it at the next spin, if yes. > 't' can be removed. Anyway, either llist_for_each_entry() or > llist_for_each_entry_safe() works correctly and well here. Any one you > use is OK to me, thanks for your informative reply :-) I rather appriciate it. Thank you, Byungchul