On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 04:00:15PM -0700, Pete Zaitcev wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 17:00:04 -0500, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > + list_for_each_safe (entry, tmp, &qh->qtd_list) {
> > + qtd = list_entry (entry, struct ehci_qtd, qtd_list);
> > + if (cpu_to_le32 (qtd->qtd_dma) == qh->hw_current)
> > + return qtd;
> > + }
>
> Why use list_for_each_safe when mere list_for_each would do?
> In fact, some might ask for list_for_each_entry.
Yes, I think Rusty has an automated email that checks for every new
list_for_each that doesn't use list_for_each_entry, you don't want to
hit that :)
So could you change it to use this? I don't think that the "safe"
version is needed here either, do you?
thanks,
greg k-h
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop.
Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser.
Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/
_______________________________________________
linux-usb-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
To unsubscribe, use the last form field at:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
