From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752043AbdHHGu1 (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Aug 2017 02:50:27 -0400 Received: from server.coly.li ([162.144.45.48]:55620 "EHLO server.coly.li" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751863AbdHHGuZ (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Aug 2017 02:50:25 -0400 Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH] bcache: Don't reinvent the wheel but use existing llist API To: Byungchul Park Cc: kent.overstreet@gmail.com, shli@kernel.org, linux-bcache@vger.kernel.org, linux-raid@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@lge.com References: <1502095121-14337-1-git-send-email-byungchul.park@lge.com> <20170808041233.GR20323@X58A-UD3R> <20170808060056.GS20323@X58A-UD3R> From: Coly Li Message-ID: <1c3836c4-e930-5d7b-76cc-31a287a408a7@coly.li> Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2017 14:50:15 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20170808060056.GS20323@X58A-UD3R> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - server.coly.li X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - vger.kernel.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - coly.li X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: server.coly.li: authenticated_id: i@coly.li X-Authenticated-Sender: server.coly.li: i@coly.li X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 2017/8/8 下午2:00, Byungchul Park wrote: > On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 01:28:39PM +0800, Coly Li wrote: >>>>> + llist_for_each_entry_safe(cl, t, reverse, list) { >>>> >>>> Just wondering why not using llist_for_each_entry(), or you use the >>>> _safe version on purpose ? >>> >>> If I use llist_for_each_entry(), then it would change the original >>> behavior. Is it ok? >>> >> >> I feel llist_for_each_entry() keeps the original behavior, and variable > > Ah.. I see. Then.. Can I change it into non-safe version? Is it still ok > with non-safe one? I will change it at the next spin, if yes. > >> 't' can be removed. Anyway, either llist_for_each_entry() or >> llist_for_each_entry_safe() works correctly and well here. Any one you >> use is OK to me, thanks for your informative reply :-) > > I rather appriciate it. > Yes, please. And you have my Acked-by :-) -- Coly Li