linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/5] Thermal: fix empty list checking method.

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAKohponhk=Hz1XTVOoNZWnaSQjguzY6djVPaQou9SX3f0bieyw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 17 Oct 2012 19:54:00 +0530
From:	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:	"hongbo.zhang" <hongbo.zhang@...aro.org>
Cc:	linaro-dev@...ts.linaro.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, STEricsson_nomadik_linux@...t.st.com,
	kernel@...oocommunity.org, linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org,
	"hongbo.zhang" <hongbo.zhang@...aro.com>, patches@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] Thermal: fix empty list checking method.

On 16 October 2012 17:14, hongbo.zhang <hongbo.zhang@...aro.org> wrote:
> From: "hongbo.zhang" <hongbo.zhang@...aro.com>
>
> Is is not reliable to check the list entry pointer after
> list_for_each_entry loop, list_empty should be used instead.
>
> Signed-off-by: hongbo.zhang <hongbo.zhang@...aro.com>
> ---
>  drivers/thermal/cpu_cooling.c | 5 +++--
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/thermal/cpu_cooling.c b/drivers/thermal/cpu_cooling.c
> index b6b4c2a..d196230 100644
> --- a/drivers/thermal/cpu_cooling.c
> +++ b/drivers/thermal/cpu_cooling.c
> @@ -247,12 +247,13 @@ static int cpufreq_get_max_state(struct thermal_cooling_device *cdev,
>         struct cpufreq_frequency_table *table;
>
>         mutex_lock(&cooling_cpufreq_lock);
> +       if (list_empty(&cooling_cpufreq_list))
> +               goto return_get_max_state;
> +
>         list_for_each_entry(cpufreq_device, &cooling_cpufreq_list, node) {
>                 if (cpufreq_device && cpufreq_device->cool_dev == cdev)
>                         break;
>         }
> -       if (cpufreq_device == NULL)
> -               goto return_get_max_state;

I am surprised, why is it written like this in the first place :)

Reviewed-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/