[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Yh+SHs4CEWkiLxAe@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date:   Wed, 2 Mar 2022 17:49:50 +0200
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
        Hui Wang <hui.wang@...onical.com>, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, nvdimm@...ts.linux.dev
Cc:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma@...el.com>,
        Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@...el.com>,
        Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] ACPI: Switch to use list_entry_is_head() helper
On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 01:04:23PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> Since we got list_entry_is_head() helper in the generic header,
> we may switch the ACPI modules to use it. This eliminates the
> need in additional variable. In some cases it reduces critical
> sections as well.
Besides the work required in a couple of cases (LKP) there is an
ongoing discussion about list loops (and this particular API).
Rafael, what do you think is the best course of action here?
-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
 
