On 07/26, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
>
> (2013/07/26 5:04), Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > parent = dentry;
> > down:
> > mutex_lock(&parent->d_inode->i_mutex);
> > list_for_each_entry_safe(child, next, &parent->d_subdirs, d_u.d_child) {
>
> Perhaps, you can use list_for_each_entry_safe_continue() here, as below.
>
> parent = dentry;
> down:
> child = list_first_entry_or_null(&parent->d_subdirs,
> typeof(*child), d_u.d_child);
> mutex_lock(&parent->d_inode->i_mutex);
>
> restart:
> list_for_each_entry_safe_continue(child, next, &parent->d_subdirs,
> d_u.d_child) {
>
> > if (!debugfs_positive(child))
> > continue;
> >
> > /* XXX: simple_empty(child) instead ? */
> > if (!list_empty(&child->d_subdirs)) {
> > mutex_unlock(&parent->d_inode->i_mutex);
> > parent = child;
> > goto down;
> > }
> > up:
> > __debugfs_remove(child, parent);
> > }
>
> Then, you can avoid jumping into the loop, just restart it from
> parent as below.
Yes, but I'd prefer to jump into the loop. This is subjective, but looks
a bit more understandable to me.
Because "goto down/up" are actually "call/return", and "jump up" looks
like return-after-recursive-debugfs_remove_recursive-call.
However,
> if (child != dentry)
> goto restart;
>
> > mutex_unlock(&parent->d_inode->i_mutex);
Yes, I realized this right after I sent the email ;)
We can factor out the final ->d_parent/mutex_lock if we check
"child != dentry" instead of "parent != dentry".
I'll send the patch in a minute. Thanks.
Oleg.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
