On Wed, Oct 04, 2017 at 03:39:30PM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 4 Oct 2017, Dan Carpenter wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Oct 04, 2017 at 01:58:32AM +0530, Srishti Sharma wrote:
> > > Use list_for_each_entry_safe when the list elements may get deleted
> > > during traversal.
> >
> > This patch is fine as a cleanup but none of these are actually buggy.
>
> I'm not sure what you are getting at with the comment. The commit doesn't
> say that they were buggy. Perhaps the commit message could have been more
> verbose, like "Use list operators on list_head values.
> List_for_each_entry_safe is needed because the list elements get deleted
^^^^^^^^^
It is not *needed*, the original code works fine. The problem with the
original code, is that it's ugly as sin.
> during the traversal"?
The changelog needs to say *why* we're applying the patch. At first I
thought it was going to fix a use after free. What I would prefer in
the changelog is something like: "This patch is a cleanup and doesn't
change runtime behavior. It changes an open coded list traversal to
use list_for_each_entry_safe."
regards,
dan carpenter
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
