[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e1e06281-16e9-edb8-dcda-7bdcf60507a7@solarflare.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2020 15:34:46 +0000
From: Edward Cree <ecree@...arflare.com>
To: "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>
CC: <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/8] net: sfc: use skb_list_walk_safe helper for gso
segments
On 08/01/2020 21:59, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> This is a straight-forward conversion case for the new function, and
> while we're at it, we can remove a null write to skb->next by replacing
> it with skb_mark_not_on_list.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@...c4.com>
> ---
> drivers/net/ethernet/sfc/tx.c | 7 ++-----
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/sfc/tx.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/sfc/tx.c
> index 00c1c4402451..547692b33b4d 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/sfc/tx.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/sfc/tx.c
> @@ -473,12 +473,9 @@ static int efx_tx_tso_fallback(struct efx_tx_queue *tx_queue,
> dev_consume_skb_any(skb);
> skb = segments;
>
> - while (skb) {
> - next = skb->next;
> - skb->next = NULL;
> -
> + skb_list_walk_safe(skb, skb, next) {
Could this be replaced with
skb_list_walk_safe(segments, skb, next) {
and elide the assignment just above?
Or is there some reason I'm missing not to do that?
-ed
> + skb_mark_not_on_list(skb);
> efx_enqueue_skb(tx_queue, skb);
> - skb = next;
> }
>
> return 0;
Powered by blists - more mailing lists