Am 28.02.22 um 21:42 schrieb James Bottomley:
> On Mon, 2022-02-28 at 21:07 +0100, Christian König wrote:
>> Am 28.02.22 um 20:56 schrieb Linus Torvalds:
>>> On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 4:19 AM Christian König
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> [SNIP]
>>> Anybody have any ideas?
>> I think we should look at the use cases why code is touching (pos)
>> after the loop.
>>
>> Just from skimming over the patches to change this and experience
>> with the drivers/subsystems I help to maintain I think the primary
>> pattern looks something like this:
>>
>> list_for_each_entry(entry, head, member) {
>> if (some_condition_checking(entry))
>> break;
>> }
>> do_something_with(entry);
>
> Actually, we usually have a check to see if the loop found anything,
> but in that case it should something like
>
> if (list_entry_is_head(entry, head, member)) {
> return with error;
> }
> do_somethin_with(entry);
>
> Suffice? The list_entry_is_head() macro is designed to cope with the
> bogus entry on head problem.
That will work and is also what people already do.
The key problem is that we let people do the same thing over and over
again with slightly different implementations.
Out in the wild I've seen at least using a separate variable, using a
bool to indicate that something was found and just assuming that the
list has an entry.
The last case is bogus and basically what can break badly.
If we would have an unified macro which search for an entry combined
with automated reporting on patches to use that macro I think the
potential to introduce such issues will already go down massively
without auditing tons of existing code.
Regards,
Christian.
>
> James
>
>