On Tue, May 06, 2008 at 01:27:37PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 6 May 2008, Greg KH wrote:
>
> > On Wed, May 07, 2008 at 04:02:53AM +0900, OGAWA Hirofumi wrote:
> > > Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > >
> > > > On Tue, 6 May 2008, OGAWA Hirofumi wrote:
> > > >> - if ((drv->entry.next != drv->entry.prev) ||
> > > >> + if ((drv->entry.next != drv->entry.prev) &&
> > > >> (drv->entry.next != NULL)) {
> > > >
> > > > Umm. That code still makes no sense.
> > > >
> > > > The "drv->entry.next == drv->entry.prev" condition will trigger under
> > > > *three* different circumstances:
> > > >
> > > > - next/prev == NULL (uninitialized). Checked for by the explicit check
> > > > against NULL.
> > > >
> > > > - list empty (both next/prev point back to itself), which I assume the
> > > > check was *meant* for.
> > > >
> > > > - list has only *one* entry, when next/prev both point to the list head.
> > > >
> > > > and I'm pretty damn sure that whoever wrote that code didn't mean that
> > > > last one, but who knows..
> > > >
> > > > The fact is, looking at next/prev this way is a sure way to have bugs.
> > > >
> > > > What is that PoS *trying* to test for? I assume it is meant to test for
> > > >
> > > > /* Is the list initialized and non-empty? */
> > > > if (drv->entry.next && !list_empty(&drv->entry)) {
> > > > ...
> > > >
> > > > and dammit, just doing it that way is shorter and simpler.
> >
> > But I don't think that will work as others have pointed out, this
> > structure's list field isn't initialized yet.
>
> Umm. And what do you think the test for drv->entry.next is there for?
Doh, nevermind, I don't know what I was thinking, this should be fine.
I think I need a nap...
greg k-h
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
