Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 4 Oct 2017 17:40:12 +0300 | From | Dan Carpenter <> | Subject | Re: [Outreachy kernel] Re: [PATCH] Staging: rtl8188eu: core: Use list_for_each_entry_safe |
| |
On Wed, Oct 04, 2017 at 03:39:30PM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote: > > > On Wed, 4 Oct 2017, Dan Carpenter wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 04, 2017 at 01:58:32AM +0530, Srishti Sharma wrote: > > > Use list_for_each_entry_safe when the list elements may get deleted > > > during traversal. > > > > This patch is fine as a cleanup but none of these are actually buggy. > > I'm not sure what you are getting at with the comment. The commit doesn't > say that they were buggy. Perhaps the commit message could have been more > verbose, like "Use list operators on list_head values. > List_for_each_entry_safe is needed because the list elements get deleted ^^^^^^^^^
It is not *needed*, the original code works fine. The problem with the original code, is that it's ugly as sin.
> during the traversal"?
The changelog needs to say *why* we're applying the patch. At first I thought it was going to fix a use after free. What I would prefer in the changelog is something like: "This patch is a cleanup and doesn't change runtime behavior. It changes an open coded list traversal to use list_for_each_entry_safe."
regards, dan carpenter
| |