On Sat, May 03, 2014 at 01:32:13PM +0200, Alexander Aring wrote:
> Hi Sascha,
>
> On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 08:06:46AM +0200, Sascha Hauer wrote:
> > We need list_for_each_entry_safe in dev_remove_bb_dev since the
> > list entries are removed during iteration over the list.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Reported-by: Alexander Aring <alex.aring@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/mtd/nand/nand-bb.c | 4 ++--
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/nand-bb.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/nand-bb.c
> > index f387ef6..89d5945 100644
> > --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/nand-bb.c
> > +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/nand-bb.c
> > @@ -308,9 +308,9 @@ out1:
> >
> > int dev_remove_bb_dev(const char *name)
> > {
> > - struct nand_bb *bb;
> > + struct nand_bb *bb, *tmp;
> >
> > - list_for_each_entry(bb, &bb_list, list) {
> > + list_for_each_entry_safe(bb, tmp, &bb_list, list) {
> > if (!strcmp(bb->cdev.name, name)) {
> > devfs_remove(&bb->cdev);
> > cdev_close(bb->cdev_parent);
>
> after reconsider this one, we don't need a list_for_each_entry_safe here
> because we returning after deleting and leave the for each loop there.
> Sorry, so maybe we should revert this commit? :-)
Well, the commit is not wrong, only unnecessary, so keep it.
Sascha
--
Pengutronix e.K. | |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
