From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Jouni Malinen" Subject: Re: [PATCH] d80211: use list_for_each_entry{,_safe} Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 08:43:22 -0700 Message-ID: <20060830154322.GA18041@instant802.com> References: <1156927420.4013.57.camel@ux156> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: "John W. Linville" , Jiri Benc , netdev Return-path: Received: from dhost002-44.dex002.intermedia.net ([64.78.21.135]:55052 "EHLO dhost002-44.dex002.intermedia.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751055AbWH3Pnc (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Aug 2006 11:43:32 -0400 To: Johannes Berg Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1156927420.4013.57.camel@ux156> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 10:43:39AM +0200, Johannes Berg wrote: > This patch converts uses of list_for_each and list_for_each_safe to > list_for_each_entry and list_for_each_entry_safe respectively where > applicable. It also adds locking in some places though I'm not entirely > sure that I can do it that way (i.e. call ieee80211_key_enable_hwaccel > etc. with spinlocks held). Could you please separate cleanup parts (list_for_each changes) from functional changes (adding locking) to make it easier to review the patch? I would prefer not to hold spinlocks when calling registered callbacks from the hardware driver. At minimum, this would need to be documented very clearly to make sure that whoever is writing low-level drivers would be aware of this. In general, it would just be simpler if this can be avoided altogether. -- Jouni Malinen PGP id EFC895FA