Re: [PATCH] f2fs: use list_for_each rather than list_for_each_safe, in remove_orphan_inode()

[Nikola Pajkovsky]

Gu Zheng <guz.fnst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> On 07/22/2013 11:36 PM, Nikola Pajkovsky wrote:
>
>> Gu Zheng <guz.fnst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>>  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
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/