linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] list: add list_for_each_entry

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]

Date:	Thu, 6 Jun 2013 14:12:48 -0400
From:	Jörn Engel <joern@...fs.org>
To:	Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Cc:	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Chris Mason <chris.mason@...ionio.com>,
	linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] list: add list_for_each_entry_del

On Thu, 6 June 2013 22:32:55 +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 8:28 PM, Joern Engel <joern@...fs.org> wrote:
> > I have seen a lot of boilerplate code that either follows the pattern of
> >         while (!list_empty(head)) {
> >                 pos = list_entry(head->next, struct foo, list);
> >                 list_del(pos->list);
> >                 ...
> >         }
> > or some variant thereof.
> 
> What the problem to use list_for_each_safe()?

The loop may terminate with elements left on the list.  There is more,
but I would consider this the main problem.

Jörn

--
If you're willing to restrict the flexibility of your approach,
you can almost always do something better.
-- John Carmack
--
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/