[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120530181006.GA19471@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 20:10:06 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ibm.com>,
Anton Arapov <anton@...hat.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] uprobes: simplify the usage of uprobe->pending_list
On 05/30, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
>
> * Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> [2012-05-30 18:58:46]:
>
> > uprobe->pending_list is only used to create the temporary list,
> > it has no meaning after we drop uprobes_mmap_hash(inode).
> >
> > No need to initialize this node or remove it from tmp_list, and
> > we can use list_for_each_entry().
>
>
> I actually dont see the patch that removed the uprobe->pending_list.
I think you misread this cleanup. Or may be I misunderstood you...
The patch only removes the unnecessary INIT_LIST_HEAD/list_del and
changes the code to use list_for_each_entry (_safe is not needed).
list_add() doesn't need the initialized entry, and there is no need
to "cleanup" ->pending_list after list_for_each().
However. If you dislike this change, feel free to nack it.. Cleanups
are always subjective, I won't argue if you prefer the current code.
Oleg.
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists