Hi Alexander, On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 03:04:44PM +0100, Alexander Stein wrote: > Hi Sakari, > > I suppose on of your intentions of this series is to replace my patch, no? No, these are somewhat unrelated issues. > > Am Montag, 11. März 2024, 13:17:41 CET schrieb Sakari Ailus: > > Properly check that a notifier was never initialised or register. This can > > now be done by looking at the entry in the notifier list, not the V4L2 > > device or sub-device that are set in the initialiser now. > > > > Fixes: b8ec754ae4c5 ("media: v4l: async: Set v4l2_device and subdev in async notifier init") > > Signed-off-by: Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > drivers/media/v4l2-core/v4l2-async.c | 6 ++++-- > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/media/v4l2-core/v4l2-async.c b/drivers/media/v4l2-core/v4l2-async.c > > index 2ff35d5d60f2..3b43d6285dfe 100644 > > --- a/drivers/media/v4l2-core/v4l2-async.c > > +++ b/drivers/media/v4l2-core/v4l2-async.c > > @@ -630,12 +630,14 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(v4l2_async_nf_register); > > static void > > __v4l2_async_nf_unregister(struct v4l2_async_notifier *notifier) > > { > > - if (!notifier || (!notifier->v4l2_dev && !notifier->sd)) > > + /* Return here if the notifier is never initialised or registered. */ > > + if (!notifier->notifier_entry.next || > > I don't like the idea checking the next pointer of a list. > Despite that it's not even necessary. Actually I think we can drop the above change. But the list_del_init() below is still necessary. > > Best regards, > Alexander > > > + list_empty(¬ifier->notifier_entry)) > > return; > > > > v4l2_async_nf_unbind_all_subdevs(notifier); > > > > - list_del(¬ifier->notifier_entry); > > + list_del_init(¬ifier->notifier_entry); > > } > > > > void v4l2_async_nf_unregister(struct v4l2_async_notifier *notifier) > > > > -- Regards, Sakari Ailus