util: Fix foreach_list_typed_safe when exec_node is not at offset 0.
__next and __prev are pointers to the structure containing the exec_node link, not the embedded exec_node. NULL checks would fail unless the embedded exec_node happened to be at offset 0 in the parent struct. v2: Jason Ekstrand <jason.ekstrand@intel.com>: Use "(__node)->__field.next != NULL" to check for the end of the list instead of the "&__next->__field != NULL". The former is far more obviously correct as it matches what the non-safe versions do. The original code tried to avoid any use of __next as the client code may delete it during its execution. However, since the looping condition is checked after the iteration clause but before the client code is executed, we know that __node is valid during the looping condition. Signed-off-by: Jason Ekstrand <jason.ekstrand@intel.com> Reviewed-by: Matt Turner <mattst88@gmail.com> Reviewed-by: Connor Abbott <cwabbott0@gmail.com> Reviewed-by: Kenneth Graunke <kenneth@whitecape.org>
This commit is contained in:
parent
547c760964
commit
67388c1ef2
|
@ -684,7 +684,7 @@ inline void exec_node::insert_before(exec_list *before)
|
|||
exec_node_data(__type, (__list)->head, __field), \
|
||||
* __next = \
|
||||
exec_node_data(__type, (__node)->__field.next, __field); \
|
||||
__next != NULL; \
|
||||
(__node)->__field.next != NULL; \
|
||||
__node = __next, __next = \
|
||||
exec_node_data(__type, (__next)->__field.next, __field))
|
||||
|
||||
|
@ -693,7 +693,7 @@ inline void exec_node::insert_before(exec_list *before)
|
|||
exec_node_data(__type, (__list)->tail_pred, __field), \
|
||||
* __prev = \
|
||||
exec_node_data(__type, (__node)->__field.prev, __field); \
|
||||
__prev != NULL; \
|
||||
(__node)->__field.prev != NULL; \
|
||||
__node = __prev, __prev = \
|
||||
exec_node_data(__type, (__prev)->__field.prev, __field))
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue