On  8.08.2017 09:00, Byungchul Park wrote:
> 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?

Generally, _safe versions of list primitives is used when you are going
to perform removal in the iteration. I haven't looked at the code in
bcache but if it's removing entries from the list then _safe version is
required. If you are only iterating - then non-safe version is fine.

>> 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

Reply via email to