From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@in.ibm.com>,
Anton Arapov <anton@redhat.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@hitachi.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] uprobes: simplify the usage of uprobe->pending_list
Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 20:10:06 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120530181006.GA19471@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120530174858.GN15587@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
On 05/30, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
>
> * Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> [2012-05-30 18:58:46]:
>
> > uprobe->pending_list is only used to create the temporary list,
> > it has no meaning after we drop uprobes_mmap_hash(inode).
> >
> > No need to initialize this node or remove it from tmp_list, and
> > we can use list_for_each_entry().
>
>
> I actually dont see the patch that removed the uprobe->pending_list.
I think you misread this cleanup. Or may be I misunderstood you...
The patch only removes the unnecessary INIT_LIST_HEAD/list_del and
changes the code to use list_for_each_entry (_safe is not needed).
list_add() doesn't need the initialized entry, and there is no need
to "cleanup" ->pending_list after list_for_each().
However. If you dislike this change, feel free to nack it.. Cleanups
are always subjective, I won't argue if you prefer the current code.
Oleg.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-05-30 18:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-05-30 16:57 [PATCH 0/3] uprobes: misc minor changes Oleg Nesterov
2012-05-30 16:58 ` [PATCH 1/3] uprobes: install_breakpoint() should fail if is_swbp_insn() == T Oleg Nesterov
2012-05-30 17:28 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-05-30 17:37 ` Srikar Dronamraju
2012-05-30 17:49 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-05-30 17:54 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-05-30 18:03 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-05-30 18:04 ` Srikar Dronamraju
2012-05-30 18:21 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-05-31 18:53 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-06-01 15:53 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-06-01 16:33 ` Srikar Dronamraju
2012-06-01 17:20 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-06-01 18:31 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-06-02 18:21 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-06-01 16:47 ` Srikar Dronamraju
2012-06-01 18:38 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-05-31 12:15 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-05-31 12:54 ` Srikar Dronamraju
2012-05-30 16:58 ` [PATCH 2/3] uprobes: remove the unnecessary initialization in add_utask() Oleg Nesterov
2012-05-30 16:58 ` [PATCH 3/3] uprobes: simplify the usage of uprobe->pending_list Oleg Nesterov
2012-05-30 17:48 ` Srikar Dronamraju
2012-05-30 18:10 ` Oleg Nesterov [this message]
2012-05-30 18:23 ` Srikar Dronamraju
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20120530181006.GA19471@redhat.com \
--to=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=ananth@in.ibm.com \
--cc=anton@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=masami.hiramatsu.pt@hitachi.com \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
Powered by JetHome