[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180604004940.GA3206@builder>
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2018 17:49:40 -0700
From: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>
To: Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>
Cc: ohad@...ery.com, linux-remoteproc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, bgoswami@...eaurora.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rohkumar@....qualcomm.com,
stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rpmsg: smd: do not use mananged resources for endpoints
and channels
On Fri 01 Jun 16:32 PDT 2018, Srinivas Kandagatla wrote:
> @@ -1380,11 +1380,13 @@ static void qcom_smd_edge_release(struct device *dev)
> {
> struct qcom_smd_channel *channel;
> struct qcom_smd_edge *edge = to_smd_edge(dev);
> + struct list_head *this, *tmp;
>
> - list_for_each_entry(channel, &edge->channels, list) {
> - SET_RX_CHANNEL_INFO(channel, state, SMD_CHANNEL_CLOSED);
> - SET_RX_CHANNEL_INFO(channel, head, 0);
> - SET_RX_CHANNEL_INFO(channel, tail, 0);
> + list_for_each_safe(this, tmp, &edge->channels) {
> + channel = list_entry(this, struct qcom_smd_channel, list);
Is there a reason not to use list_for_each_entry_safe()?
> + list_del(&channel->list);
> + kfree(channel->name);
> + kfree(channel);
Regards,
Bjorn
Powered by blists - more mailing lists