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:   Tue, 8 Aug 2017 15:00:56 +0900
From:   Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>
To:     Coly Li <i@...y.li>
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 Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 01:28:39PM +0800, Coly Li wrote:
> >>> +	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 ?
> > 
> > If I use llist_for_each_entry(), then it would change the original
> > behavior. Is it ok?
> > 
> 
> I feel llist_for_each_entry() keeps the original behavior, and variable

Ah.. I see. Then.. Can I change it into non-safe version? Is it still ok
with non-safe one? I will change it at the next spin, if yes.

> 't' can be removed. Anyway, either llist_for_each_entry() or
> llist_for_each_entry_safe() works correctly and well here. Any one you
> use is OK to me, thanks for your informative reply :-)

I rather appriciate it.

Thank you,
Byungchul