Re: [PATCH] drivers/block/ub.c: use list_for_each_entry()

["Satyam Sharma" <satyam.sharma@gmail.com>]

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/