On Thu, Jun 11, 2026 at 10:01:25AM +0200, Christian König wrote: > On 6/10/26 17:02, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 10, 2026 at 11:11:34AM +0200, Christian König wrote: > >> On 6/10/26 10:18, Kaitao Cheng wrote: > >>> 在 2026/6/10 16:07, Christian König 写道:
... > >>> Should we revert to v1, or keep list_for_each_entry() and > >>> list_for_each_entry_safe() as they are, close this thread, and make no > >>> changes? > >>> > >>> Link to v1: > >>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/ > >>> > >>> Or do you have any better suggestions? > >> > >> v1 looks perfectly reasonable to me. > > > > But why not just hiding that once for all (in case they don't use the > > temporary > > iterator)? Easy to automate, robust — everyone is happy? > > As far as I can see that is an extremely bad idea. > > The distinction between the use cases of 'iterating the list' and 'iterating > the list while you modify it' is completely intentional. What I meant is to keep the name, just drop the parameter (make it hidden and being defined inside list_for_each_*_safe() cases). > See the bool type can be implemented by int as well, but it is just a > different use case. > >> You should just include some patches in the same patch set to actually use > >> the new macros. > >> > >> If you modify the files under drivers/dma-buf or drivers/gpu/drm/amd to use > >> the new macro I'm happy to review that. > > > -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
