Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
IronPort-SDR: tmMsnUdcqtrwROFF980siFlweEbpqsLey1zI/KDfDZehQTDjB44ogL+Z7glgTojfaTv4YdETGt
 1luX1Wl1sLog==
IronPort-SDR: FSfa88hx+XVDjLrPi1beO/mBqYjz9PlI9D5VFJTwyb1moJVB5HnTYH83Gaptko9FK++MAicn1e
 4YEtBYUYaBFg==
Date:   Mon, 1 Feb 2021 18:08:03 +0200
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
To:     Christian =?iso-8859-1?Q?K=F6nig?= 
        <ckoenig.leichtzumerken@gmail.com>
Cc:     mojha@codeaurora.org, jkosina@suse.cz, cezary.rojewski@intel.com,
        neilb@suse.com, b00073877@aus.edu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] list: add more extensive double add check
Message-ID: <YBgnY8FXpHJdoDos@smile.fi.intel.com>
References: <20210201135251.1884-1-christian.koenig@amd.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <20210201135251.1884-1-christian.koenig@amd.com>
Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Feb 01, 2021 at 02:52:51PM +0100, Christian K?nig wrote:
> Adding the same element to a linked list multiple times
> seems to be a rather common programming mistake. To debug
> those I've more than once written some code to check a
> linked list for duplicates.
> 
> Since re-inventing the wheel over and over again is a bad
> idea this patch tries to add some common code which allows
> to check linked lists for duplicates while adding new
> elements.
> 
> When list debugging is enabled we currently already check
> the previous and next element if they are identical to the
> new one. This patch now adds a configuration option to
> check N elements before and after the desired position.
> 
> By default we still only test one item since testing more
> means quite a large CPU overhead. This can be overwritten
> on a per C file bases by defining DEBUG_LIST_DOUBLE_ADD
> before including list.h.

I'm not sure it is a good idea. Currently the implementation is *generic*.
You are customizing it w/o letting caller know.

Create a derivative implementation and name it exlist (exclusive list) and use
whenever it makes sense.

And I think if you are still pushing to modify generic one the default must be
0 in order not altering current behaviour.

> A new kunit test is also added to the existing list tests
> which intentionally triggers the debug functionality.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko