[dpdk-dev] [PATCH 07/49] net/ice/base: replay advanced rule after reset

[Maxime Coquelin]

On 6/5/19 5:53 PM, Stillwell Jr, Paul M wrote:
>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/ice/base/ice_switch.c
>>> b/drivers/net/ice/base/ice_switch.c
>>> index c53021aed..ca0497ca7 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/net/ice/base/ice_switch.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/net/ice/base/ice_switch.c
>>> @@ -3033,6 +3033,27 @@ ice_rem_sw_rule_info(struct ice_hw *hw,
>> struct LIST_HEAD_TYPE *rule_head)
>>>    	}
>>>    }
>>>
>>> +/**
>>> + * ice_rem_adv_rule_info
>>> + * @hw: pointer to the hardware structure
>>> + * @rule_head: pointer to the switch list structure that we want to
>>> +delete  */ static void ice_rem_adv_rule_info(struct ice_hw *hw,
>>> +struct LIST_HEAD_TYPE *rule_head) {
>>> +	struct ice_adv_fltr_mgmt_list_entry *tmp_entry;
>>> +	struct ice_adv_fltr_mgmt_list_entry *lst_itr;
>>> +
>>> +	if (LIST_EMPTY(rule_head))
>>> +		return;
>>
>> Is it necessary? If the list is empty, LIST_FOR_EACH_ENTRY will not loop and
>> status will be returned:
>>
> Yes, the check is necessary. This code gets consumed by multiple different OSs and not all OSs implement the LIST_FOR_EACH_ENTRY_SAFE in the way that DPDK did. For example, if I'm understanding the Linux code correctly, the list_for_each_entry_safe code in Linux would not work correctly without checking LIST_EMPTY since the Linux implementation doesn't have a check for null in it's implementation of list_for_each_entry_safe.

Do you mean the same patch is upstreamed into Linux Kernel without any
adaptations?