El Wed, May 30, 2007 at 12:38:40PM -0700 Pete Zaitcev ha dit:
> On Wed, 30 May 2007 10:47:52 +0200, Matthias Kaehlcke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > @@ -1608,8 +1605,7 @@ static void ub_reset_task(struct work_struct *work)
> > spin_lock_irqsave(sc->lock, flags);
> > sc->reset = 0;
> > tasklet_schedule(&sc->tasklet);
> > - list_for_each(p, &sc->luns) {
> > - lun = list_entry(p, struct ub_lun, link);
> > + list_for_each_entry(lun, &sc->luns, link) {
> > blk_start_queue(lun->disk->queue);
> > }
> > wake_up(&sc->reset_wait);
>
> This patch straddles the border of acceptable. The pointless obfuscation
> is balanced against the removal of explicit type in list_entry() and thus
> a possible mismatched struct. I'm not acking nor naking this.
if i understand you correctly the problem isn't so much the patch, but
the use of list_for_each_entry() in general. i thought
list_for_each_entry() is preferred over list_for_each() when its use
is possible.
i understand your point, though i think only a chain of errors would
make list_for_each_entry() a problem without being notified by the
compiler:
1) the mismatched struct must have a list_head pointer
2) the name of this list_head pointer must match the name in
list_for_each_entry()
3) the mismatched struct must be 'compatible' with the code in the
loop
please correct me if i misinterpreted the reason of your concerns
regards
--
Matthias Kaehlcke
Linux Application Developer
Barcelona
El trabajo es el refugio de los que no tienen nada que hacer
(Oscar Wilde)
.''`.
using free software / Debian GNU/Linux | http://debian.org : :' :
`. `'`
gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys 47D8E5D4 `-
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
