On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 1:34 PM Andy Shevchenko
<andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> The infinite loops is harder to understand (as one has to go
> over the body in order to find main exit conditional) and it's
> more verbose than usual approach with a while-loop.
>
> Note, we may not use list_for_each_entry_safe() as there is locking
> involved and the saved pointer may become invalid behind our back.
>
> Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
> ---
> drivers/acpi/scan.c | 14 ++++++--------
> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/scan.c b/drivers/acpi/scan.c
> index 7c157bf92695..5e4118970285 100644
> --- a/drivers/acpi/scan.c
> +++ b/drivers/acpi/scan.c
> @@ -530,15 +530,10 @@ static DEFINE_MUTEX(acpi_device_del_lock);
>
> static void acpi_device_del_work_fn(struct work_struct *work_not_used)
> {
> - for (;;) {
> - struct acpi_device *adev;
> + struct acpi_device *adev;
>
> - mutex_lock(&acpi_device_del_lock);
> -
> - if (list_empty(&acpi_device_del_list)) {
> - mutex_unlock(&acpi_device_del_lock);
> - break;
> - }
> + mutex_lock(&acpi_device_del_lock);
> + while (!list_empty(&acpi_device_del_list)) {
> adev = list_first_entry(&acpi_device_del_list,
> struct acpi_device, del_list);
> list_del(&adev->del_list);
> @@ -555,7 +550,10 @@ static void acpi_device_del_work_fn(struct work_struct *work_not_used)
> */
> acpi_power_transition(adev, ACPI_STATE_D3_COLD);
> acpi_dev_put(adev);
> +
> + mutex_lock(&acpi_device_del_lock);
> }
> + mutex_unlock(&acpi_device_del_lock);
> }
>
> /**
> --
I don't quite agree with this one, sorry.
The rest of the series has been applied as 6.10 material.
Thanks!