On Wed, Oct 2, 2024 at 11:09 AM Namhyung Kim <namhyung@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
[...]
> +
> +static void *kmem_cache_iter_seq_start(struct seq_file *seq, loff_t *pos)
> +{
> + loff_t cnt = 0;
> + bool found = false;
> + struct kmem_cache *s;
> +
> + mutex_lock(&slab_mutex);
> +
> + /*
> + * Find an entry at the given position in the slab_caches list instead
> + * of keeping a reference (of the last visited entry, if any) out of
> + * slab_mutex. It might miss something if one is deleted in the middle
> + * while it releases the lock. But it should be rare and there's not
> + * much we can do about it.
> + */
> + list_for_each_entry(s, &slab_caches, list) {
> + if (cnt == *pos) {
> + /*
> + * Make sure this entry remains in the list by getting
> + * a new reference count. Note that boot_cache entries
> + * have a negative refcount, so don't touch them.
> + */
> + if (s->refcount > 0)
> + s->refcount++;
> + found = true;
> + break;
> + }
> + cnt++;
> + }
> + mutex_unlock(&slab_mutex);
> +
> + if (!found)
> + return NULL;
> +
> + ++*pos;
This should be
if (*pos == 0)
++*pos;
> + return s;
> +}
> +
> +static void kmem_cache_iter_seq_stop(struct seq_file *seq, void *v)
[...]
