[lkml]   [2010]   [Aug]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/6] improve list_sort test
On Sun, 2010-08-08 at 12:31 -0700, Don Mullis wrote:
> Yes, invalid 'a' or 'b' pointers would be a bug. If providing a test
> case is hard, can you say what segment is pointed to? Into the stack?
> Into address ranges normal for elements, but not now on the list? Is
> there a pattern to the values returned? Is it perhaps always the
> first or last callback from a particular call to list_sort()?

You've correctly identified in the the other mail that 'a' and 'b'
sometimes point to the list head. I've just checked this.

> That sometimes a==b is, on the other hand, by design:
> /*
> * In worst cases this loop may run many iterations.
> * Continue callbacks to the client even though no
> * element comparison is needed, so the client's cmp()
> * routine can invoke cond_resched() periodically.
> */
> (*cmp)(priv, tail, tail);
> Adding a sentence to the function header comment reminding callers
> that they need to be able to handle a==b seems like a good idea.

OK, I'll add it.

Best Regards,
Artem Bityutskiy (Артём Битюцкий)

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2010-08-21 11:37    [W:0.041 / U:3.552 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site