On Fri, 30 May 2025, stuart hayes wrote:

> On 5/30/2025 2:54 AM, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> > On Thu, 29 May 2025, Stuart Hayes wrote:
> > 
> > > Stop using an entire struct packet_data just for the embedded list_head,
> > > and fix usage of that list_head.
> > > 
> > > Fixes: d19f359fbdc6 ("platform/x86: dell_rbu: don't open code
> > > list_for_each_entry*()")
> > > Signed-off-by: Stuart Hayes <stuart.w.hayes@gmail.com>
> > 
> > Isn't this just refactor so Fixes tag for this commit is not warranted?
> > 
> 
> No. The patch that this fixes had converted the driver to use
> list_for_each_entry*() to loop through the packet list instead of a while
> loop. But it passed (&packet_data_head.list)->next to list_for_each_entry*()
> instead of the list head itself.
> 
> That resulted in to issues. In the function that prints the packets, it would
> start with the wrong packet, and in the function that deletes the packets, it
> would get a null pointer dereference when it tried to zero out the data
> associated with the packet that held the actual list head.

Oh, I see that difference now. Good catch.

However, that also means the ->next part is wrong and there are two 
independent changes here, one that fixes this ->next problem and then the 
refactoring of packet_data_head to packet_data_list?

> > > ---
> > >   drivers/platform/x86/dell/dell_rbu.c | 10 +++++-----
> > >   1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/dell/dell_rbu.c
> > > b/drivers/platform/x86/dell/dell_rbu.c
> > > index 7b019fb72e86..c03d4d55fcc1 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/platform/x86/dell/dell_rbu.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/platform/x86/dell/dell_rbu.c
> > > @@ -77,14 +77,14 @@ struct packet_data {
> > >   	int ordernum;
> > >   };
> > >   -static struct packet_data packet_data_head;
> > > +static struct list_head packet_data_list;
> > >     static struct platform_device *rbu_device;
> > >   static int context;
> > >     static void init_packet_head(void)
> > >   {
> > > -	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&packet_data_head.list);
> > > +	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&packet_data_list);
> > >   	rbu_data.packet_read_count = 0;
> > >   	rbu_data.num_packets = 0;
> > >   	rbu_data.packetsize = 0;
> > > @@ -183,7 +183,7 @@ static int create_packet(void *data, size_t length)
> > > __must_hold(&rbu_data.lock)
> > >     	/* initialize the newly created packet headers */
> > >   	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&newpacket->list);
> > > -	list_add_tail(&newpacket->list, &packet_data_head.list);
> > > +	list_add_tail(&newpacket->list, &packet_data_list);
> > >     	memcpy(newpacket->data, data, length);
> > >   @@ -292,7 +292,7 @@ static int packet_read_list(char *data, size_t *
> > > pread_length)
> > >   	remaining_bytes = *pread_length;
> > >   	bytes_read = rbu_data.packet_read_count;
> > >   -	list_for_each_entry(newpacket, (&packet_data_head.list)->next, list) {
> > > +	list_for_each_entry(newpacket, &packet_data_list, list) {
> > >   		bytes_copied = do_packet_read(pdest, newpacket,
> > >   			remaining_bytes, bytes_read, &temp_count);
> > >   		remaining_bytes -= bytes_copied;
> > > @@ -315,7 +315,7 @@ static void packet_empty_list(void)
> > >   {
> > >   	struct packet_data *newpacket, *tmp;
> > >   -	list_for_each_entry_safe(newpacket, tmp,
> > > (&packet_data_head.list)->next, list) {
> > > +	list_for_each_entry_safe(newpacket, tmp, &packet_data_list, list) {
> > >   		list_del(&newpacket->list);
> > >     		/*
> > > 
> > 
> 

-- 
 i.