On Tue 23 Apr 2019 at 19:51, Jakub Kicinski <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
Okay.
