On Tue, 23 Apr 2019 07:34:20 +0000, Vlad Buslov wrote: > >> @@ -382,6 +395,8 @@ static void fl_hw_destroy_filter(struct tcf_proto *tp, > >> struct cls_fl_filter *f, > >> > >> tc_setup_cb_call(block, TC_SETUP_CLSFLOWER, &cls_flower, false); > >> spin_lock(&tp->lock); > >> + if (!list_empty(&f->hw_list)) > >> + list_del_init(&f->hw_list); > > > > Mm. I thought list_del_init() on an empty list should be fine? > > Is it? Implementation of list_del_init() doesn't seem to check if list > is empty before re-initializing its pointers. Technically it seems like > it can work because the implementation will just set pointers of empty > list to point to itself (which is how empty list head is defined), but > should we assume this is intended behavior and not just implementation > detail? I don't see anything in comments for this function that suggests > that it is okay to call list_del_init() on empty list head.
Mm.. I'd do it, IDK if there was ever an official ruling by the supreme court of Linus or any such ;) __list_del_entry_valid() looks like it'd not complain. Up to you, in general it didn't read very idiomatic, that's all.
