[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220410110508.em3r7z62ufqcbrfm@skbuf>
Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2022 14:05:08 +0300
From: Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
To: Jakob Koschel <jakobkoschel@...il.com>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...il.com>,
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
Lars Povlsen <lars.povlsen@...rochip.com>,
Steen Hegelund <Steen.Hegelund@...rochip.com>,
UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com, Ariel Elior <aelior@...vell.com>,
Manish Chopra <manishc@...vell.com>,
Edward Cree <ecree.xilinx@...il.com>,
Martin Habets <habetsm.xilinx@...il.com>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
Casper Andersson <casper.casan@...il.com>,
Bjarni Jonasson <bjarni.jonasson@...rochip.com>,
Colin Ian King <colin.king@...el.com>,
Michael Walle <michael@...le.cc>,
Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Di Zhu <zhudi21@...wei.com>, Xu Wang <vulab@...as.ac.cn>,
Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>,
Brian Johannesmeyer <bjohannesmeyer@...il.com>,
Cristiano Giuffrida <c.giuffrida@...nl>,
"Bos, H.J." <h.j.bos@...nl>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 02/15] net: dsa: sja1105: Remove usage of
iterator for list_add() after loop
On Sun, Apr 10, 2022 at 12:51:56PM +0200, Jakob Koschel wrote:
> I've just looked at this again in a bit more detail while integrating it into the patch series.
>
> I realized that this just shifts the 'problem' to using the 'pos' iterator variable after the loop.
> If the scope of the list iterator would be lowered to the list traversal loop it would also make sense
> to also do it for list_for_each().
Yes, but list_for_each() was never formulated as being problematic in
the same way as list_for_each_entry(), was it? I guess I'm starting to
not understand what is the true purpose of the changes.
> What do you think about doing it this way:
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/dsa/sja1105/sja1105_vl.c b/drivers/net/dsa/sja1105/sja1105_vl.c
> index b7e95d60a6e4..f5b0502c1098 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/dsa/sja1105/sja1105_vl.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/dsa/sja1105/sja1105_vl.c
> @@ -28,6 +28,7 @@ static int sja1105_insert_gate_entry(struct sja1105_gating_config *gating_cfg,
> list_add(&e->list, &gating_cfg->entries);
> } else {
> struct sja1105_gate_entry *p;
> + struct list_head *pos = NULL;
>
> list_for_each_entry(p, &gating_cfg->entries, list) {
> if (p->interval == e->interval) {
> @@ -37,10 +38,14 @@ static int sja1105_insert_gate_entry(struct sja1105_gating_config *gating_cfg,
> goto err;
> }
>
> - if (e->interval < p->interval)
> + if (e->interval < p->interval) {
> + pos = &p->list;
> break;
> + }
> }
> - list_add(&e->list, p->list.prev);
> + if (!pos)
> + pos = &gating_cfg->entries;
> + list_add(&e->list, pos->prev);
> }
>
> gating_cfg->num_entries++;
> --
>
> >
> > Thanks for the suggestion.
> >
> >> }
> >>
> >> gating_cfg->num_entries++;
> >> -----------------------------[ cut here ]-----------------------------
> >
> > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kernel/20220407102900.3086255-12-jakobkoschel@gmail.com/
> >
> > Jakob
>
> Thanks,
> Jakob
Powered by blists - more mailing lists