linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/4] trace_workqueue: use list_for_each_entry() instead of list_for_each_entry

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 20 Apr 2009 09:26:09 +0200
From:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To:	Zhaolei <zhaolei@...fujitsu.com>
Cc:	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Tom Zanussi <tzanussi@...il.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] trace_workqueue: use list_for_each_entry() instead
	of list_for_each_entry_safe()

On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 02:58:26PM +0800, Zhaolei wrote:
> No need to use list_for_each_entry_safe() in iteration without delete node,
> we use list_for_each_entry() instead.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Zhao Lei <zhaolei@...fujitsu.com>
> ---
>  kernel/trace/trace_workqueue.c |   10 ++++------
>  1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/trace/trace_workqueue.c b/kernel/trace/trace_workqueue.c
> index 984b917..934b27c 100644
> --- a/kernel/trace/trace_workqueue.c
> +++ b/kernel/trace/trace_workqueue.c
> @@ -47,12 +47,11 @@ probe_workqueue_insertion(struct task_struct *wq_thread,
>  			  struct work_struct *work)
>  {
>  	int cpu = cpumask_first(&wq_thread->cpus_allowed);
> -	struct cpu_workqueue_stats *node, *next;
> +	struct cpu_workqueue_stats *node;
>  	unsigned long flags;
>  
>  	spin_lock_irqsave(&workqueue_cpu_stat(cpu)->lock, flags);
> -	list_for_each_entry_safe(node, next, &workqueue_cpu_stat(cpu)->list,
> -							list) {
> +	list_for_each_entry(node, &workqueue_cpu_stat(cpu)->list, list) {
>  		if (node->pid == wq_thread->pid) {
>  			atomic_inc(&node->inserted);
>  			goto found;
> @@ -69,12 +68,11 @@ probe_workqueue_execution(struct task_struct *wq_thread,
>  			  struct work_struct *work)
>  {
>  	int cpu = cpumask_first(&wq_thread->cpus_allowed);
> -	struct cpu_workqueue_stats *node, *next;
> +	struct cpu_workqueue_stats *node;
>  	unsigned long flags;
>  
>  	spin_lock_irqsave(&workqueue_cpu_stat(cpu)->lock, flags);
> -	list_for_each_entry_safe(node, next, &workqueue_cpu_stat(cpu)->list,
> -							list) {
> +	list_for_each_entry(node, &workqueue_cpu_stat(cpu)->list, list) {
>  		if (node->pid == wq_thread->pid) {
>  			node->executed++;
>  			goto found;


Thanks, looks good.

Acked-by: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com> 

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/