From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Coly Li <i@coly.li>
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH] bcache: Don't reinvent the wheel but use existing
 llist API
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2017 18:18:35 +0800
Message-ID: <b37c4038-d95f-ca81-5789-825ebfc6d425@coly.li>
References: <1502095121-14337-1-git-send-email-byungchul.park@lge.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Return-path: <linux-bcache-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from server.coly.li ([162.144.45.48]:51734 "EHLO server.coly.li"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1752739AbdHGKSn (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-bcache@vger.kernel.org>);
        Mon, 7 Aug 2017 06:18:43 -0400
In-Reply-To: <1502095121-14337-1-git-send-email-byungchul.park@lge.com>
Content-Language: en-US
Sender: linux-bcache-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-bcache@vger.kernel.org
To: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com>
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

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 <byungchul.park@lge.com
Only have a question about why not using llist_for_each_entry(), it's
still OK with llist_for_each_entry_safe(). The rested part is good to me.

Acked-by: Coly Li <colyli@suse.de>

> ---
>  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