Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 31 May 2007 02:44:17 +0530 | From | "Satyam Sharma" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] drivers/block/ub.c: use list_for_each_entry() |
| |
Hi Pete,
On 5/31/07, Pete Zaitcev <zaitcev@redhat.com> wrote: > On Wed, 30 May 2007 10:47:52 +0200, Matthias Kaehlcke <matthias.kaehlcke@gmail.com> wrote: > > > @@ -1608,8 +1605,7 @@ static void ub_reset_task(struct work_struct *work) > > spin_lock_irqsave(sc->lock, flags); > > sc->reset = 0; > > tasklet_schedule(&sc->tasklet); > > - list_for_each(p, &sc->luns) { > > - lun = list_entry(p, struct ub_lun, link); > > + list_for_each_entry(lun, &sc->luns, link) { > > blk_start_queue(lun->disk->queue); > > } > > wake_up(&sc->reset_wait); > > This patch straddles the border of acceptable. The pointless obfuscation > is balanced against the removal of explicit type in list_entry() and thus > a possible mismatched struct. I'm not acking nor naking this.
A list_for_each() followed by list_entry() ---> list_for_each_entry() conversion is a pretty harmless (and desirable) conversion, IMO. In fact list_for_each_entry() itself uses list_entry(..., typeof(*p), ...) which seems to be a safer way to use list_entry() than specifying the type explicity/manually in its arguments, no?
Satyam - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |