From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6AE4C352A1 for ; Tue, 5 Apr 2022 12:19:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1359077AbiDEMUU (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Apr 2022 08:20:20 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:47834 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S244982AbiDEIw4 (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Apr 2022 04:52:56 -0400 Received: from mail-wm1-x330.google.com (mail-wm1-x330.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::330]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7C226E0EB; Tue, 5 Apr 2022 01:48:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wm1-x330.google.com with SMTP id i6-20020a1c3b06000000b0038e710da2dcso1111817wma.1; Tue, 05 Apr 2022 01:48:33 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=JysfUtBbV1yB6ulPL8qCt0+AynaBy1ohgfTXNgk6MB0=; b=G6Gn4S/T+/2xjEfH19TC3Z2WEyythPt+0uqXFPhKHukxVYYb4iNuQdeun/cviMQ3Uq EiiNVUDSSNsfAJepmOCBBRtqew8aO2h3+LnbBKIrUZnMJRK3TzB7lGyM6Yonn/DXA7pN kOdKdDeXuB6IIstu7sMOUYYmikssPl/qgE43wIdGNL/AiuKNsGIs563HziGseiId3Omo JN8yfCDrs1cajyuqcj22v00NX8NCvZ8VkUvh3c3eeeAZxyMp2MyYji4OFIvj4aFpRK7L YepEkla7ezaypzMy+col8vnP/uoKWrCs/ZImUdH7UD39gfk/iyVaqnrBPcw2sa8cdr2k OytA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=JysfUtBbV1yB6ulPL8qCt0+AynaBy1ohgfTXNgk6MB0=; b=67GsNwOIw3vh8as3NFcrywYlnvrSpfPXEVCvJqH/h7SLvR199+7EN4Rg8g6w0Ofzr3 1JafX5mI8jBaSvCyJ25VfCIhZXQOvB4JDcvzvmyxgN9F+bluuH41WV+SmmRNqHhxM+Pm Uqaxb5aOJwfasw3jTDp/BRsirK+uDujHapxE5iRVeFWxR8t+XLJ1QXuR2NB1w/zsw7Nb Ee0l5rbwaM0vNlqnYgP7jA1+NiP8RpHMU2mMab8rqJUw7CEd1XiRxP0kVqKyPfLEc5YZ MGnoiHGZL9V8LKBt3hrCO3ySh5Hp13Vr6NdbU2IevVBa4J15w/vOc8zy3za8CoSRVdBa j/dA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530Dj9F2cB8VUBM4oOXFlaAUh5F2dJX6IZZXAZwFmMLSEKD4oiHV ZTVmoulKLjcCViP6/zzWnvE= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxTH9suN+qXTycbX3htbU0fTO28wuXG11xRAdNHXf7BB5No6ds07TokaCnxj2VFjdyc0ttNPQ== X-Received: by 2002:a7b:c844:0:b0:37b:b986:7726 with SMTP id c4-20020a7bc844000000b0037bb9867726mr2170955wml.160.1649148511840; Tue, 05 Apr 2022 01:48:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtpclient.apple ([95.128.147.62]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id bg8-20020a05600c3c8800b0038e4c5967besm1594651wmb.3.2022.04.05.01.48.31 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 05 Apr 2022 01:48:31 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3696.80.82.1.1\)) Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs/proc/kcore.c: remove check of list iterator against head past the loop body From: Jakob Koschel In-Reply-To: <20220404155516.a5fb4c23ee017a7212e4b22c@linux-foundation.org> Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2022 10:48:30 +0200 Cc: Mike Rapoport , David Hildenbrand , Oscar Salvador , LKML , linux-fsdevel , Brian Johannesmeyer , Cristiano Giuffrida , "Bos, H.J." Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <32C4FBEE-D56B-46AA-AB95-1A17B5CC0A87@gmail.com> References: <20220331223700.902556-1-jakobkoschel@gmail.com> <20220331164843.b531fbf00d6e7afd6cdfe113@linux-foundation.org> <20220404155516.a5fb4c23ee017a7212e4b22c@linux-foundation.org> To: Andrew Morton X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3696.80.82.1.1) Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > On 5. Apr 2022, at 00:55, Andrew Morton = wrote: >=20 > On Fri, 1 Apr 2022 09:19:57 +0200 Jakob Koschel = wrote: >=20 >>> Speaking of limiting scope... >>=20 >> Fair point :-) >>=20 >> I see you have applied this already to the -mm tree. Shall I still = move the iterator? >> The hope is to remove the 'iter' variable altogether when there are = no uses after >> the loop anymore. >=20 > I don't really understand the question. Basically I was asking if I should send a v2 with the change you = suggested. >=20 > My plan is to merge your patch with my fixlet immediately prior to > sending upstream. ok, great. Even better, so ignore my question. Thanks, Jakob=