From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from verein.lst.de ([213.95.11.211]:33465 "EHLO newverein.lst.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727738AbfFYKPU (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Jun 2019 06:15:20 -0400 Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2019 12:14:45 +0200 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/12] xfs: refactor the ioend merging code Message-ID: <20190625101445.GK1462@lst.de> References: <20190624055253.31183-1-hch@lst.de> <20190624055253.31183-10-hch@lst.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-xfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: List-Id: xfs To: Nikolay Borisov Cc: Christoph Hellwig , "Darrick J . Wong" , Damien Le Moal , Andreas Gruenbacher , linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 07:06:22PM +0300, Nikolay Borisov wrote: > > +{ > > + struct list_head tmp; > > + > > + list_replace_init(&ioend->io_list, &tmp); > > + xfs_destroy_ioend(ioend, error); > > + while ((ioend = list_pop(&tmp, struct xfs_ioend, io_list))) > > + xfs_destroy_ioend(ioend, error); > > nit: I'd prefer if the list_pop patch is right before this one since > this is the first user of it. I try to keep generic infrastructure first instead of interveawing it with subystem-specific patches. > Additionally, I don't think list_pop is > really a net-negative win What is a "net-negative win" ? > in comparison to list_for_each_entry_safe > here. In fact this "delete the list" would seems more idiomatic if > implemented via list_for_each_entry_safe I disagree. The for_each loops require an additional next iterator, and also don't clearly express what is going on, but require additional spotting of the list_del.