[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151006172555.GA3931@mtj.duckdns.org>
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2015 13:25:55 -0400
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Cody P Schafer <dev@...yps.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
John de la Garza <john@...ev.com>,
Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rbtree: clarify documentation of
rbtree_postorder_for_each_entry_safe()
Hello,
On Sun, Oct 04, 2015 at 06:32:50PM -0400, Cody P Schafer wrote:
> Doing this will cause random nodes to be missed by the iteration because
> rb_erase() may rebalance the tree, changing the ordering that we're
> trying to iterate over.
>
> The previous documentation for rbtree_postorder_for_each_entry_safe()
> wasn't clear that this wasn't allowed, it was taken from the docs for
> list_for_each_entry_safe(), where erasing isn't a problem due to
> list_del() not reordering.
Ugh... that's a misleading name for an iterator if it doesn't allow
removal of elements during iteration.
> Explicitly warn developers about this potential pit-fall.
>
> Note that I haven't fixed the actual issue that (it appears) the commit
> referenced above introduced (not familiar enough with that code).
>
> In general (and in this case), the patterns to follow are:
> - switch to rb_first() + rb_erase(), don't use
> rbtree_postorder_for_each_entry_safe().
I'll update it to a while loop on rb_first().
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists