lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Jan]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [patch] f2fs: use _safe() version of list_for_each
From
2013/1/21, Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk.kim@samsung.com>:
> 2013-01-21 (월), 00:32 -0800, Dmitry Torokhov:
>> On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 06:02:58PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
>> > This is calling list_del() inside a loop which is a problem when we try
>> > move to the next item on the list. I've converted it to use the _safe
>> > version. And also, as a cleanup, I've converted it to use
>> > list_for_each_entry instead of list_for_each.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
>> > ---
>> > Static analysis stuff. Untested. Please review carefully.
>>
>> Makes sense to me.
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>
>>
>
> No doubt, applied.
> Thanks,
I agree in cases – where we will have chances of parallel access and
modification to the linked we should use list_for_each_entry_safe()
But my point was related with this code change case in the patch.
We will have path like this:
f2fs_fill_super->recover_fsync_data->destroy_fsync_dnodes()
From this calling path – there can only be a single caller at any
given time. So, we will not have the case of having parallel access to
the list which is local to recover_fsync_data() and destroyed on exit
from this function.
From the real issue point of view – this does not looks convincing to
me why expensive _safe fucntion should used.

Thanks.
>
> --
> Jaegeuk Kim
> Samsung
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-01-21 12:01    [W:0.076 / U:0.420 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site