Problems in list.h macros?

Problems in list.h macros?

[Stuart MacDonald]

I am referring to a stock 2.4.27's linux/list.h.

1: list_for_each(_entry)_safe() calls seem not to be as safe as they
are implied to be. They seem to be only actually safe *iff* a
list_del() is the only operation performed on the list entry. If pos
is freed after a list_del, aren't you toast? If n has its pointers
modified, say by a list_add() to a different list, don't you end up
at the new list instead of the original list? Shouldn't this be noted
in the macro comments?

..Stu

Possible Spam:Re: Problems in list.h macros?

[Peter W. Morreale]

 From list.h:

 * list_for_each_safe   -       iterate over a list safe against removal 
of list entry

It's only safe to remove entries.    

-PWM



Stuart MacDonald wrote:

>I am referring to a stock 2.4.27's linux/list.h.
>
>1: list_for_each(_entry)_safe() calls seem not to be as safe as they
>are implied to be. They seem to be only actually safe *iff* a
>list_del() is the only operation performed on the list entry. If pos
>is freed after a list_del, aren't you toast? If n has its pointers
>modified, say by a list_add() to a different list, don't you end up
>at the new list instead of the original list? Shouldn't this be noted
>in the macro comments?
>
>..Stu
>
>-
>To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
>the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
>More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
>  
>