From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm0-f46.google.com (mail-wm0-f46.google.com [74.125.82.46]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77CF06B0257 for ; Sat, 5 Dec 2015 11:23:13 -0500 (EST) Received: by wmec201 with SMTP id c201so112832528wme.0 for ; Sat, 05 Dec 2015 08:23:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from gum.cmpxchg.org (gum.cmpxchg.org. [85.214.110.215]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id lc7si25617564wjc.198.2015.12.05.08.23.12 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 05 Dec 2015 08:23:12 -0800 (PST) Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2015 11:22:58 -0500 From: Johannes Weiner Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/memcontrol.c: use list_{first,next}_entry Message-ID: <20151205162258.GA1792@cmpxchg.org> References: <9e62e3006561653fcbf0c49cf0b9c2b653a8ed0e.1449152124.git.geliangtang@163.com> <20151203162718.GK9264@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20151205025542.GB9812@bogon> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20151205025542.GB9812@bogon> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Geliang Tang Cc: Michal Hocko , cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Dec 05, 2015 at 10:55:42AM +0800, Geliang Tang wrote: > On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 05:27:18PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Thu 03-12-15 22:16:55, Geliang Tang wrote: > > > To make the intention clearer, use list_{first,next}_entry instead > > > of list_entry. > > > > Does this really help readability? This function simply uncharges the > > given list of pages. Why cannot we simply use list_for_each_entry > > instead... > > I have tested it, list_for_each_entry can't work. Dose it mean that my > patch is OK? Or please give me some other advices. Your patch is okay. Please feel free to add my Acked-by: Johannes Weiner -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org