Hi Ionut,
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 9:13 AM, Ionut Nicu <[email protected]> wrote:
> Convert the rmgr module of the tidspbridge driver
> to use struct list_head instead of struct lst_list.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ionut Nicu <[email protected]>
<snip>
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/tidspbridge/rmgr/drv.c
> b/drivers/staging/tidspbridge/rmgr/drv.c
<snip>
> @@ -492,16 +465,17 @@ u32 drv_get_next_dev_object(u32 hdev_obj)
> u32 dw_next_dev_object = 0;
> struct drv_object *pdrv_obj;
> struct drv_data *drv_datap = dev_get_drvdata(bridge);
> + struct list_head *curr;
>
> DBC_REQUIRE(hdev_obj != 0);
can we remove the DBC_REQUIRE and always check for !hdev_obj?
>
> if (drv_datap && drv_datap->drv_object) {
> pdrv_obj = drv_datap->drv_object;
> - if ((pdrv_obj->dev_list != NULL) &&
> - !LST_IS_EMPTY(pdrv_obj->dev_list)) {
> - dw_next_dev_object = (u32)
> lst_next(pdrv_obj->dev_list,
> - (struct list_head
> *)
> - hdev_obj);
> + if (!list_empty(&pdrv_obj->dev_list)) {
> + curr = (struct list_head *)hdev_obj;
> + if (curr->next == &pdrv_obj->dev_list)
Can we use list_is_last() instead?
> + return 0;
> + dw_next_dev_object = (u32) curr->next;
<snip>
> @@ -573,11 +548,8 @@ int drv_insert_dev_object(struct drv_object *driver_obj,
> DBC_REQUIRE(refs > 0);
> DBC_REQUIRE(hdev_obj != NULL);
> DBC_REQUIRE(pdrv_object);
> - DBC_ASSERT(pdrv_object->dev_list);
> -
As a comment for all the functions that are manipulating lists, can we
check the parameters that they receive?, this applies for some other
functions in these patches, old lst_* functions were internally validating
the having of a valid pointer, now i think that we have to add this to each
function.
> - lst_put_tail(pdrv_object->dev_list, (struct list_head *)hdev_obj);
>
> - DBC_ENSURE(!LST_IS_EMPTY(pdrv_object->dev_list));
> + list_add_tail((struct list_head *)hdev_obj, &pdrv_object->dev_list);
<snip>
> @@ -1571,15 +1566,9 @@ int node_enum_nodes(struct node_mgr *hnode_mgr, void
> **node_tab,
> *pu_num_nodes = 0;
> status = -EINVAL;
> } else {
> - hnode = (struct node_object *)lst_first(hnode_mgr->
> - node_list);
> - for (i = 0; i < hnode_mgr->num_nodes; i++) {
> - DBC_ASSERT(hnode);
> - node_tab[i] = hnode;
> - hnode = (struct node_object *)lst_next
> - (hnode_mgr->node_list,
> - (struct list_head *)hnode);
> - }
> + i = 0;
just a comment, what if we initialize this "i" when declared and
remove this line.
> + list_for_each_entry(hnode, &hnode_mgr->node_list, list_elem)
> + node_tab[i++] = hnode;
> *pu_allocated = *pu_num_nodes = hnode_mgr->num_nodes;
> }
<snip>
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/tidspbridge/rmgr/rmm.c
> b/drivers/staging/tidspbridge/rmgr/rmm.c
<snip>
> @@ -145,20 +141,17 @@ int rmm_alloc(struct rmm_target_obj *target, u32 segid,
> u32 size,
> if (new_sect == NULL) {
> status = -ENOMEM;
> } else {
> - lst_init_elem((struct list_head *)new_sect);
> new_sect->addr = addr;
> new_sect->size = size;
> new_sect->page = segid;
> - if (sect == NULL) {
> + if (sect == NULL)
I think that "sect" can't be NULL at this point... can be?
can we use: if (list_is_last(§->list_elem, target->ovly_list)) instead?
> /* Put new section at the end of the list */
> - lst_put_tail(target->ovly_list,
> - (struct list_head *)new_sect);
> - } else {
> + list_add_tail(&new_sect->list_elem,
> + &target->ovly_list);
> + else
<snip>
> @@ -333,24 +316,17 @@ bool rmm_free(struct rmm_target_obj *target, u32 segid,
> u32 dsp_addr, u32 size,
>
> } else {
> /* Unreserve memory */
> - sect = (struct rmm_ovly_sect *)lst_first(target->ovly_list);
> - while (sect != NULL) {
> + list_for_each_entry_safe(sect, tmp, &target->ovly_list,
> + list_elem) {
> if (dsp_addr == sect->addr) {
> DBC_ASSERT(size == sect->size);
> /* Remove from list */
> - lst_remove_elem(target->ovly_list,
> - (struct list_head *)sect);
> + list_del(§->list_elem);
> kfree(sect);
> + ret = true;
> break;
can we just return true and do not break?
> }
Regards,
Rene
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
