On 10/26/2017 08:58 PM, Boqun Feng wrote: >> Is there other objections about merging this patch series? With the >> additional patches 8 & 9 that I sent out on Oct 17, I think I had >> addressed all the concerns that I received so far. Please let me know >> what else do I need to do to make these patches mergeable? >> > Hi Waiman, > > Have you read my email about the dlist_for_each_entry_safe(): > > https://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=150831690725964&w=2 > > ? > > Regards, > Boqun
I am sorry that I somehow forgot to respond to this email. Anyway, dlist_for_each_entry_safe() is not currently used and so was not that well-tested. I just sent out another patch to fix that use-after-unlock problem that you had found. The fix is somewhat different from what you proposed, but that should still fix the problem. I modified some dlist_for_each_entry() macros to dlist_for_each_entry_safe(), compiled and boot the kernel. I haven't seen any problem so far. Cheers, Longman
