On Fri, 5 July 2013 23:38:01 +0100, Filipe David Manana wrote:
+#define list_del_each_entry(pos, head, member) \
+ while (list_empty(head) (pos = list_first_entry((head), \
+ typeof(*pos), member), list_del((head)-next), 1))
+
Shouldn't it be while
On Mon, 3 June 2013 13:28:03 -0400, Joern Engel wrote:
A purely janitorial patchset. A fairly common pattern is to take a
list, remove every object from it and do something with this object -
usually kfree() some variant. A stupid grep identified roughly 300
instances, with many more
Signed-off-by: Joern Engel jo...@logfs.org
---
fs/btrfs/backref.c | 15 +++
fs/btrfs/compression.c |4 +---
fs/btrfs/disk-io.c |6 +-
fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c | 17 +++--
fs/btrfs/extent_io.c|8 ++--
fs/btrfs/inode.c| 16
I have seen a lot of boilerplate code that either follows the pattern of
while (!list_empty(head)) {
pos = list_entry(head-next, struct foo, list);
list_del(pos-list);
...
}
or some variant thereof.
With this patch in, people can use
On Thu, 6 June 2013 22:49:22 +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 9:12 PM, Jörn Engel jo...@logfs.org wrote:
On Thu, 6 June 2013 22:32:55 +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 8:28 PM, Joern Engel jo...@logfs.org wrote:
I have seen a lot of boilerplate code
On Fri, 7 June 2013 21:30:16 +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
spin_lock
list_for_each_entry_safe
list_del
spin_unlock
Who is doing such thing?
Replace list_for_each_entry_safe with 'while (!list_empty(...))' and
just grep. My patch is about 'while (!list_empty(...))',
On Thu, 6 June 2013 22:32:55 +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 8:28 PM, Joern Engel jo...@logfs.org wrote:
I have seen a lot of boilerplate code that either follows the pattern of
while (!list_empty(head)) {
pos = list_entry(head-next, struct foo,
On Tue, 4 June 2013 22:09:13 +0200, Arne Jansen wrote:
On 06/04/13 16:53, Chris Mason wrote:
Quoting Christoph Hellwig (2013-06-04 10:48:56)
On Mon, Jun 03, 2013 at 03:55:55PM -0400, J??rn Engel wrote:
Actually, when I compare the two invocations, I prefer the
list_for_each_entry_del()
I have seen a lot of boilerplate code that either follows the pattern of
while (!list_empty(head)) {
pos = list_entry(head-next, struct foo, list);
list_del(pos-list);
...
}
or some variant thereof.
With this patch in, people can use
Signed-off-by: Joern Engel jo...@logfs.org
---
fs/btrfs/backref.c | 15 +++
fs/btrfs/compression.c |4 +---
fs/btrfs/disk-io.c |6 +-
fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c | 17 +++--
fs/btrfs/extent_io.c|8 ++--
fs/btrfs/inode.c| 16
On Tue, 4 June 2013 14:44:35 -0400, Jörn Engel wrote:
Or while_list_drain?
Not sure if the silence is approval or lack of interest, but a new set
of patches is posted. By playing around with the implementation a
bit, I have actually found a variant that makes the object code
shrink. Not one
On Mon, 3 June 2013 13:28:03 -0400, Joern Engel wrote:
Drawback is that object size is growing. I think an ideal compiler
should be able to optimize all the overhead away, but 4.7 just isn't
there yet. Or maybe I just messed up - patches are only
compile-tested after all. Comments/ideas
On Mon, 3 June 2013 15:36:47 -0400, Jörn Engel wrote:
On Mon, 3 June 2013 13:49:30 -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
I can't say I like the structure.
A list_pop that removes and entry from the head or returns NULL if the
list is empty would lead to nice while loops that are obviously
13 matches
Mail list logo
