On Wed 2018-10-17 15:31:07, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 02:37:08PM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > +static int klp_init_lists(struct klp_patch *patch)
> > +{
> > + struct klp_object *obj;
> > + struct klp_func *func;
> > +
> > + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&patch->obj_list);
> > + if (!patch->objs)
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > +
> > + klp_for_each_object_static(patch, obj) {
> > + list_add(&obj->node, &patch->obj_list);
> > +
> > + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&obj->func_list);
> > + if (!obj->funcs)
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > +
> > + klp_for_each_func_static(obj, func)
> > + list_add(&func->node, &obj->func_list);
> > + }
> > +
> > + return 0;
> > +}
>
> It may be ever-so-slightly better to use list_add_tail() instead of
> list_add(), so the list order matches the array order. I doubt the
> ordering really matters, but you never know. It could for example make
> debugging a little easier in some scenarios.
Makes sense. Will do in v14.
Best Regareds,
Petr
