On 6/5/19 5:53 PM, Stillwell Jr, Paul M wrote:
diff --git a/drivers/net/ice/base/ice_switch.c
b/drivers/net/ice/base/ice_switch.c
index c53021aed..ca0497ca7 100644
--- a/drivers/net/ice/base/ice_switch.c
+++ b/drivers/net/ice/base/ice_switch.c
@@ -3033,6 +3033,27 @@ ice_rem_sw_rule_info(struct ice_hw *hw,
struct LIST_HEAD_TYPE *rule_head)
}
}
+/**
+ * ice_rem_adv_rule_info
+ * @hw: pointer to the hardware structure
+ * @rule_head: pointer to the switch list structure that we want to
+delete */ static void ice_rem_adv_rule_info(struct ice_hw *hw,
+struct LIST_HEAD_TYPE *rule_head) {
+ struct ice_adv_fltr_mgmt_list_entry *tmp_entry;
+ struct ice_adv_fltr_mgmt_list_entry *lst_itr;
+
+ if (LIST_EMPTY(rule_head))
+ return;
Is it necessary? If the list is empty, LIST_FOR_EACH_ENTRY will not loop and
status will be returned:
Yes, the check is necessary. This code gets consumed by multiple different OSs
and not all OSs implement the LIST_FOR_EACH_ENTRY_SAFE in the way that DPDK
did. For example, if I'm understanding the Linux code correctly, the
list_for_each_entry_safe code in Linux would not work correctly without
checking LIST_EMPTY since the Linux implementation doesn't have a check for
null in it's implementation of list_for_each_entry_safe.
Do you mean the same patch is upstreamed into Linux Kernel without any
adaptations?
