From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752035AbdHHGcM (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Aug 2017 02:32:12 -0400 Received: from LGEAMRELO11.lge.com ([156.147.23.51]:54225 "EHLO lgeamrelo11.lge.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751995AbdHHGcJ (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Aug 2017 02:32:09 -0400 X-Original-SENDERIP: 156.147.1.127 X-Original-MAILFROM: byungchul.park@lge.com X-Original-SENDERIP: 10.177.222.33 X-Original-MAILFROM: byungchul.park@lge.com Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2017 15:00:56 +0900 From: Byungchul Park To: Coly Li 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 Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH] bcache: Don't reinvent the wheel but use existing llist API Message-ID: <20170808060056.GS20323@X58A-UD3R> References: <1502095121-14337-1-git-send-email-byungchul.park@lge.com> <20170808041233.GR20323@X58A-UD3R> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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. Thank you, Byungchul