| Message ID | 1433359137-12720-1-git-send-email-rolette@infiniteio.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 02:18:55PM -0500, Jay Rolette wrote: > Don't need the 'safe' version of list_for_each_entry() if you aren't deleting from the list as you iterate over it > > Signed-off-by: Jay Rolette <rolette@infiniteio.com> Acked-by: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
On Thu, Jun 04, 2015 at 02:39:17PM +0100, Bruce Richardson wrote: > On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 02:18:55PM -0500, Jay Rolette wrote: > > Don't need the 'safe' version of list_for_each_entry() if you aren't deleting from the list as you iterate over it > > > > Signed-off-by: Jay Rolette <rolette@infiniteio.com> > > Acked-by: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com> > Forgot to mention though, that the commit title needs to be a little more descriptive.
2015-06-04 14:40, Bruce Richardson: > On Thu, Jun 04, 2015 at 02:39:17PM +0100, Bruce Richardson wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 02:18:55PM -0500, Jay Rolette wrote: > > > Don't need the 'safe' version of list_for_each_entry() if you aren't deleting from the list as you iterate over it > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jay Rolette <rolette@infiniteio.com> > > > > Acked-by: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com> > > > Forgot to mention though, that the commit title needs to be a little more > descriptive. So you should not ack this version ;)
On Thu, Jun 04, 2015 at 05:02:06PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 2015-06-04 14:40, Bruce Richardson: > > On Thu, Jun 04, 2015 at 02:39:17PM +0100, Bruce Richardson wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 02:18:55PM -0500, Jay Rolette wrote: > > > > Don't need the 'safe' version of list_for_each_entry() if you aren't deleting from the list as you iterate over it > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jay Rolette <rolette@infiniteio.com> > > > > > > Acked-by: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com> > > > > > Forgot to mention though, that the commit title needs to be a little more > > descriptive. > > So you should not ack this version ;) > Code and text description looked fine, so I thought an ack otherwise appropriate. However, I will refrain from doing so in future :-) /Bruce
Would it be better to modify the similar thing in kni_ioctl_create()? - Helin > -----Original Message----- > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Jay Rolette > Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2015 3:19 AM > To: dev@dpdk.org > Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/3] kni: minor opto > > Don't need the 'safe' version of list_for_each_entry() if you aren't deleting from > the list as you iterate over it > > Signed-off-by: Jay Rolette <rolette@infiniteio.com> > --- > lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/kni/kni_misc.c | 5 ++--- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/kni/kni_misc.c > b/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/kni/kni_misc.c > index 1935d32..312f196 100644 > --- a/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/kni/kni_misc.c > +++ b/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/kni/kni_misc.c > @@ -213,13 +213,12 @@ static int > kni_thread_single(void *unused) > { > int j; > - struct kni_dev *dev, *n; > + struct kni_dev *dev; > > while (!kthread_should_stop()) { > down_read(&kni_list_lock); > for (j = 0; j < KNI_RX_LOOP_NUM; j++) { > - list_for_each_entry_safe(dev, n, > - &kni_list_head, list) { > + list_for_each_entry(dev, &kni_list_head, list) { > #ifdef RTE_KNI_VHOST > kni_chk_vhost_rx(dev); > #else > -- > 2.3.2 (Apple Git-55)
On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 9:07 PM, Zhang, Helin <helin.zhang@intel.com> wrote: > Would it be better to modify the similar thing in kni_ioctl_create()? > That one doesn't need to use the "safe" version of list_for_each_entry() either, but it isn't in the packet processing path so the minor performance improvement doesn't really matter. > > - Helin > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Jay Rolette > > Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2015 3:19 AM > > To: dev@dpdk.org > > Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/3] kni: minor opto > > > > Don't need the 'safe' version of list_for_each_entry() if you aren't > deleting from > > the list as you iterate over it > > > > Signed-off-by: Jay Rolette <rolette@infiniteio.com> > > --- > > lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/kni/kni_misc.c | 5 ++--- > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/kni/kni_misc.c > > b/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/kni/kni_misc.c > > index 1935d32..312f196 100644 > > --- a/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/kni/kni_misc.c > > +++ b/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/kni/kni_misc.c > > @@ -213,13 +213,12 @@ static int > > kni_thread_single(void *unused) > > { > > int j; > > - struct kni_dev *dev, *n; > > + struct kni_dev *dev; > > > > while (!kthread_should_stop()) { > > down_read(&kni_list_lock); > > for (j = 0; j < KNI_RX_LOOP_NUM; j++) { > > - list_for_each_entry_safe(dev, n, > > - &kni_list_head, list) { > > + list_for_each_entry(dev, &kni_list_head, list) { > > #ifdef RTE_KNI_VHOST > > kni_chk_vhost_rx(dev); > > #else > > -- > > 2.3.2 (Apple Git-55) > >
Hi Jay From: Jay Rolette [mailto:rolette@infiniteio.com] Sent: Monday, June 15, 2015 8:43 PM To: Zhang, Helin Cc: dev@dpdk.org Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/3] kni: minor opto On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 9:07 PM, Zhang, Helin <helin.zhang@intel.com<mailto:helin.zhang@intel.com>> wrote: Would it be better to modify the similar thing in kni_ioctl_create()? That one doesn't need to use the "safe" version of list_for_each_entry() either, but it isn't in the packet processing path so the minor performance improvement doesn't really matter. Yes, your patches are OK for me. I have acked it. - Helin - Helin > -----Original Message----- > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org<mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org>] On Behalf Of Jay Rolette > Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2015 3:19 AM > To: dev@dpdk.org<mailto:dev@dpdk.org> > Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/3] kni: minor opto > > Don't need the 'safe' version of list_for_each_entry() if you aren't deleting from > the list as you iterate over it > > Signed-off-by: Jay Rolette <rolette@infiniteio.com<mailto:rolette@infiniteio.com>> > --- > lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/kni/kni_misc.c | 5 ++--- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/kni/kni_misc.c > b/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/kni/kni_misc.c > index 1935d32..312f196 100644 > --- a/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/kni/kni_misc.c > +++ b/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/kni/kni_misc.c > @@ -213,13 +213,12 @@ static int > kni_thread_single(void *unused) > { > int j; > - struct kni_dev *dev, *n; > + struct kni_dev *dev; > > while (!kthread_should_stop()) { > down_read(&kni_list_lock); > for (j = 0; j < KNI_RX_LOOP_NUM; j++) { > - list_for_each_entry_safe(dev, n, > - &kni_list_head, list) { > + list_for_each_entry(dev, &kni_list_head, list) { > #ifdef RTE_KNI_VHOST > kni_chk_vhost_rx(dev); > #else > -- > 2.3.2 (Apple Git-55)
2015-06-16 01:15, Zhang, Helin:
> Yes, your patches are OK for me. I have acked it.
Series applied, thanks
diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/kni/kni_misc.c b/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/kni/kni_misc.c index 1935d32..312f196 100644 --- a/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/kni/kni_misc.c +++ b/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/kni/kni_misc.c @@ -213,13 +213,12 @@ static int kni_thread_single(void *unused) { int j; - struct kni_dev *dev, *n; + struct kni_dev *dev; while (!kthread_should_stop()) { down_read(&kni_list_lock); for (j = 0; j < KNI_RX_LOOP_NUM; j++) { - list_for_each_entry_safe(dev, n, - &kni_list_head, list) { + list_for_each_entry(dev, &kni_list_head, list) { #ifdef RTE_KNI_VHOST kni_chk_vhost_rx(dev); #else
Don't need the 'safe' version of list_for_each_entry() if you aren't deleting from the list as you iterate over it Signed-off-by: Jay Rolette <rolette@infiniteio.com> --- lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/kni/kni_misc.c | 5 ++--- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)