On Tue, Nov 07, 2006 at 09:50:07AM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > On Tue, 7 Nov 2006 07:49:43 +0100 > Jarek Poplawski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ... > Your patch duplicated the code in hlist_del_init(). Why not do: > > --- a/net/sched/sch_htb.c 2006-11-07 09:48:22.000000000 -0800 > +++ b/net/sched/sch_htb.c 2006-11-07 09:49:01.000000000 -0800 > @@ -1284,8 +1284,7 @@ > struct htb_class, sibling)); > > /* note: this delete may happen twice (see htb_delete) */ > - if (!hlist_unhashed(&cl->hlist)) > - hlist_del(&cl->hlist); > + hlist_del_init(&cl->hlist); > list_del(&cl->sibling); > > if (cl->prio_activity) > @@ -1333,8 +1332,7 @@ > sch_tree_lock(sch); > > /* delete from hash and active; remainder in destroy_class */ > - if (!hlist_unhashed(&cl->hlist)) > - hlist_del(&cl->hlist); > + hlist_del_init(&cl->hlist); > > if (cl->prio_activity) > htb_deactivate(q, cl); >
I've understood you first suggestion. But after sending my patch I've found it is also hiding a real problem of excessive deletion in one and possibly more places. So probably this should be done the right way and this hlist_unhashed testing left in BUG_ON only... Cheers, Jarek P. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
