linux-kernel - Re: [RESEND PATCH] bcache: Don't reinvent the wheel but use existing llist API

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, 7 Aug 2017 18:18:35 +0800
From:   Coly Li <i@...y.li>
To:     Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>
Cc:     kent.overstreet@...il.com, shli@...nel.org,
        linux-bcache@...r.kernel.org, linux-raid@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@....com
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH] bcache: Don't reinvent the wheel but use existing
 llist API

On 2017/8/7 下午4:38, Byungchul Park wrote:
> Although llist provides proper APIs, they are not used. Make them used.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com
Only have a question about why not using llist_for_each_entry(), it's
still OK with llist_for_each_entry_safe(). The rested part is good to me.

Acked-by: Coly Li <colyli@...e.de>

> ---
>  drivers/md/bcache/closure.c | 17 +++--------------
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/md/bcache/closure.c b/drivers/md/bcache/closure.c
> index 864e673..1841d03 100644
> --- a/drivers/md/bcache/closure.c
> +++ b/drivers/md/bcache/closure.c
> @@ -64,27 +64,16 @@ void closure_put(struct closure *cl)
>  void __closure_wake_up(struct closure_waitlist *wait_list)
>  {
>  	struct llist_node *list;
> -	struct closure *cl;
> +	struct closure *cl, *t;
>  	struct llist_node *reverse = NULL;
>  
>  	list = llist_del_all(&wait_list->list);
>  
>  	/* We first reverse the list to preserve FIFO ordering and fairness */
> -
> -	while (list) {
> -		struct llist_node *t = list;
> -		list = llist_next(list);
> -
> -		t->next = reverse;
> -		reverse = t;
> -	}
> +	reverse = llist_reverse_order(list);
>  
>  	/* Then do the wakeups */
> -
> -	while (reverse) {
> -		cl = container_of(reverse, struct closure, list);
> -		reverse = llist_next(reverse);
> -
> +	llist_for_each_entry_safe(cl, t, reverse, list) {

Just wondering why not using llist_for_each_entry(), or you use the
_safe version on purpose ?


>  		closure_set_waiting(cl, 0);
>  		closure_sub(cl, CLOSURE_WAITING + 1);
>  	}
> 


-- 
Coly Li