Hi Stewart,
Stewart Hildebrand <stewart.hildebr...@amd.com> writes:
> On 10/12/23 18:09, Volodymyr Babchuk wrote:
>> This function can be used when user wants to remove all rangeset
>> entries but do not want to destroy rangeset itself.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Volodymyr Babchuk <volodymyr_babc...@epam.com>
>>
>> ---
>>
>> Changes in v10:
>>
>> - New in v10. The function is used in "vpci/header: handle p2m range sets
>> per BAR"
>> ---
>> xen/common/rangeset.c | 9 +++++++--
>> xen/include/xen/rangeset.h | 3 ++-
>> 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/xen/common/rangeset.c b/xen/common/rangeset.c
>> index 35c3420885..420275669e 100644
>> --- a/xen/common/rangeset.c
>> +++ b/xen/common/rangeset.c
>> @@ -448,8 +448,7 @@ struct rangeset *rangeset_new(
>> return r;
>> }
>>
>> -void rangeset_destroy(
>> - struct rangeset *r)
>> +void rangeset_empty(struct rangeset *r)
>> {
>> struct range *x;
>>
>> @@ -465,6 +464,12 @@ void rangeset_destroy(
>>
>> while ( (x = first_range(r)) != NULL )
>> destroy_range(r, x);
>> +}
>> +
>> +void rangeset_destroy(
>> + struct rangeset *r)
>> +{
>> + rangeset_empty(r);
>>
>> xfree(r);
>> }
>
> I think the list_del(&r->rangeset_list) operation (and associated
> locking and NULL check) shouldn't be moved to the new rangeset_empty()
> function, it should stay in rangeset_destroy().
Ahh, yes. It was a really stupid idea to move list_del(&r->rangeset_list); to
rangeset_empty().
--
WBR, Volodymyr
