On 06/09/22 at 02:36pm, Uladzislau Rezki wrote: > > > > On 06/07/22 at 11:34am, Uladzislau Rezki (Sony) wrote: > > > A vmap_area can travel between different places. For example > > > attached/detached to/from different rb-trees. In order to > > > prevent fancy bugs, initialize a VA's list node after it is > > > removed from the list, so it pairs with VA's rb_node which > > > is also initialized. > > > > > > There is no functional change as a result of this patch. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Uladzislau Rezki (Sony) <urezki@xxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > mm/vmalloc.c | 2 +- > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/mm/vmalloc.c b/mm/vmalloc.c > > > index 745e89eb6ca1..82771e555273 100644 > > > --- a/mm/vmalloc.c > > > +++ b/mm/vmalloc.c > > > @@ -978,7 +978,7 @@ __unlink_va(struct vmap_area *va, struct rb_root *root, bool augment) > > > else > > > rb_erase(&va->rb_node, root); > > > > > > - list_del(&va->list); > > > + list_del_init(&va->list); > > > > Don't object this change, while list_del poison members, which is also > > not bad? > > > It is not bad for sure. The main aim was to be align with what the > RB_CLEAR_NODE() does, i.e. initialize VA when it is detached > and be safe with list manipulation when it is detached. For example > whether it is empty or not: list_empty(), etc. Agree. list_del() can't make list_empty() work, and RB_CLEAR_NODE() has done the clearing already. Then this change looks reasonable to me, thanks. Reviewed-by: Baoquan He <bhe@xxxxxxxxxx>
