Messages in this thread | | | From | Nikola Pajkovsky <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] f2fs: use list_for_each rather than list_for_each_safe, in remove_orphan_inode() | Date | Tue, 23 Jul 2013 09:34:18 +0200 |
| |
Gu Zheng <guz.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> writes:
> On 07/22/2013 11:36 PM, Nikola Pajkovsky wrote: > >> Gu Zheng <guz.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> writes: >> >>> As we remove the target single node, so list_for_each is enought, in order to >>> clean up, we use list_for_each_entry instead. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Gu Zheng <guz.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> >>> --- >>> fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c | 5 ++--- >>> 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c b/fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c >>> index 290db04..87f7bc2 100644 >>> --- a/fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c >>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c >>> @@ -237,13 +237,12 @@ out: >>> >>> void remove_orphan_inode(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, nid_t ino) >>> { >>> - struct list_head *this, *next, *head; >>> + struct list_head *head; >>> struct orphan_inode_entry *orphan; >>> >>> mutex_lock(&sbi->orphan_inode_mutex); >>> head = &sbi->orphan_inode_list; >>> - list_for_each_safe(this, next, head) { >>> - orphan = list_entry(this, struct orphan_inode_entry, list); >>> + list_for_each_entry(orphan, head, list) { >>> if (orphan->ino == ino) { >>> list_del(&orphan->list); >>> kmem_cache_free(orphan_entry_slab, orphan); >> >> you have meant list_for_each_entry_safe, haven't you? > > No that, here list_for_each_entry is suitable, because we delete only one entry.
yeah, you're correct.
-- Nikola
| |