On 10/17/12 08:20, Tejun Heo wrote:
>>>> - if (ent == &q->root_blkg->q_node)
>>>> + if (q->root_blkg && ent == &q->root_blkg->q_node)
>>>
>>> Can we fix it little differently. Little earlier in the code, we check for
>>> if q->blkg_list is empty, then all the groups are gone, and there are
>>> no more request lists hence and return NULL.
>>>
>>> Current code:
>>> if (rl == &q->root_rl) {
>>> ent = &q->blkg_list;
>>>
>>> Modified code:
>>> if (rl == &q->root_rl) {
>>> ent = &q->blkg_list;
>>> /* There are no more block groups, hence no request lists */
>>> if (list_empty(ent))
>>> return NULL;
>>> }
>
> Do we need this at all? q->root_blkg being NULL is completely fine
> there and the comparison would work as expected, no?
Hmm?
If list_empty(ent) and q->root_blkg == NULL,
> /* walk to the next list_head, skip root blkcg */
> ent = ent->next;
ent is &q->blkg_list again.
> if (ent == &q->root_blkg->q_node)
So ent is not &q->root_blkg->q_node.
> ent = ent->next;
> if (ent == &q->blkg_list)
> return NULL;
And we return NULL here.
Ah, yes. You are correct.
We can do without the above hunk.
--
Jun'ichi Nomura, NEC Corporation
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
