[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <86e8f054d029991167a9fe0a4bdfedff94e38022.camel@mellanox.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2020 07:53:08 +0000
From: Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>
To: "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"Julia.Lawall@...ia.fr" <Julia.Lawall@...ia.fr>
CC: "linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org" <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>,
"kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org" <kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org>,
"kuba@...nel.org" <kuba@...nel.org>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"leon@...nel.org" <leon@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/7] net/mlx5: drop unnecessary list_empty
On Mon, 2020-07-27 at 10:10 -0700, David Miller wrote:
> From: Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@...ia.fr>
> Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2020 12:58:29 +0200
>
> > list_for_each_entry is able to handle an empty list.
> > The only effect of avoiding the loop is not initializing the
> > index variable.
> > Drop list_empty tests in cases where these variables are not
> > used.
> >
> > Note that list_for_each_entry is defined in terms of
> list_first_entry,
> > which indicates that it should not be used on an empty list. But
> in
> > list_for_each_entry, the element obtained by list_first_entry is
> not
> > really accessed, only the address of its list_head field is
> compared
> > to the address of the list head, so the list_first_entry is safe.
> >
> > The semantic patch that makes this change is as follows (with
> another
> > variant for the no brace case): (http://coccinelle.lip6.fr/)
> ...
> > Signed-off-by: Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@...ia.fr>
>
> Saeed, please pick this up.
>
> Thank you.
Applied to net-next-mlx5.
Thanks !
Powered by blists - more mailing lists