Tejun Heo wrote:
> On 12/01/2009 03:35 PM, Cong Wang wrote:
>> What do you think about the patch below? Untested.
> 
> Oh, yeah, that's prettier.  Just one thing, can you please move rs
> initialization right above the pcpu_next_[un]pop() call?  The
> input/output parameters for those functions are already pretty
> confusing, let's make it at least a bit clearer.
> 

Sure, done.

------------->

Using break statement at the end of a for loop is confusing,
refactor it by replacing the for loop.

Signed-off-by: WANG Cong <amwang@redhat.com>

---