[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <492f05b7-5b41-16ab-5d8a-83801d617e9a@nvidia.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2017 20:13:39 +0000
From: Jon Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>
To: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
CC: <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pinctrl: Initialize pinctrl_dev.node
On 12/01/17 16:03, Thierry Reding wrote:
> From: Thierry Reding <treding@...dia.com>
>
> The struct pinctrl_dev's node field is not properly set up, which means
> the .prev and .next fields will be NULL. That's not something that the
> linked list code can deal with, so extra care must be taken when using
> these fields. An example of this is introduced in commit 3429fb3cda34
> ("pinctrl: Fix panic when pinctrl devices with hogs are unregistered")
> where list_del() is made conditional on the pinctrl device being part
> of the pinctrl device list. This is to ensure that list_del() won't
> crash upon encountering a NULL pointer in .prev and/or .next.
>
> After initializing the list head there's no need to jump through these
> extra hoops and list_del() will work unconditionally. This is because
> the initialized list head points to itself and therefore the .prev and
> .next fields can be properly dereferenced.
>
> Cc: Jonathan Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>
> Signed-off-by: Thierry Reding <treding@...dia.com>
Thanks for catching this.
Acked-by: Jon Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>
Tested-by: Jon Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>
Cheers
Jon
--
nvpublic
Powered by blists - more mailing lists