From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S938480AbcKKWvX (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Nov 2016 17:51:23 -0500 Received: from mga06.intel.com ([134.134.136.31]:64695 "EHLO mga06.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S934727AbcKKWvW (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Nov 2016 17:51:22 -0500 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.31,474,1473145200"; d="scan'208";a="3064644" Message-ID: <1478904680.20074.8.camel@linux.intel.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH] HID: intel_ish-hid: use list_move_tail in ishtp_cl_read_start From: Srinivas Pandruvada To: Geliang Tang , Jiri Kosina , Benjamin Tissoires Cc: linux-input@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 14:51:20 -0800 In-Reply-To: <3bdae868a5ebd999c5610f5b19e6a085c51db059.1478858760.git.geliangtang@gmail.com> References: <3bdae868a5ebd999c5610f5b19e6a085c51db059.1478858760.git.geliangtang@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.20.5 (3.20.5-1.fc24) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 2016-11-11 at 20:26 +0800, Geliang Tang wrote: > Use list_move() instead of list_del() + list_add_tail() to simplify > the code. > > Signed-off-by: Geliang Tang > --- >  drivers/hid/intel-ish-hid/ishtp/client.c | 6 +----- >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 5 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/hid/intel-ish-hid/ishtp/client.c > b/drivers/hid/intel-ish-hid/ishtp/client.c > index aad6132..0979e04 100644 > --- a/drivers/hid/intel-ish-hid/ishtp/client.c > +++ b/drivers/hid/intel-ish-hid/ishtp/client.c > @@ -497,12 +497,8 @@ int ishtp_cl_read_start(struct ishtp_cl *cl) >  out: >   /* if ishtp_hbm_cl_flow_control_req failed, return rb to > free list */ >   if (rets && rb) { > - spin_lock_irqsave(&dev->read_list_spinlock, > dev_flags); > - list_del(&rb->list); > - spin_unlock_irqrestore(&dev->read_list_spinlock, > dev_flags); > - >   spin_lock_irqsave(&cl->free_list_spinlock, flags); > - list_add_tail(&rb->list, &cl->free_rb_list.list); > + list_move_tail(&rb->list, &cl->free_rb_list.list); Logically the result is not same. They were protected under two spinlocks, now they are not. Thanks, Srinivas >   spin_unlock_irqrestore(&cl->free_list_spinlock, > flags); >   } >   return rets;