search for: list_is_last

...&len)) != NULL) { >> + if (req != pending) { >> + dev_warn(viommu->dev, "discarding stale request\n"); >> + continue; >> + } >> + >> + pending->written = len; >> + >> + if (++nr_received == nr_sent) { >> + WARN_ON(!list_is_last(&pending->list, sent)); >> + break; >> + } else if (WARN_ON(list_is_last(&pending->list, sent))) { >> + break; >> + } >> + >> + pending = list_next_entry(pending, list); > > We should remove current element from the pending list. There...

...eletions(-) diff --git a/com32/elflink/ldlinux/cli.c b/com32/elflink/ldlinux/cli.c index 7c4f14c..b70224a 100644 --- a/com32/elflink/ldlinux/cli.c +++ b/com32/elflink/ldlinux/cli.c @@ -89,10 +89,14 @@ static const char * cmd_reverse_search(int *cursor, clock_t *kbd_to, break; } - while (!list_is_last(&last_found->list, &cli_history_head)) { + while (last_found) { p = strstr(last_found->command, buf); if (p) break; + + if (list_is_last(&last_found->list, &cli_history_head)) + break; + last_found = list_entry(last_found->list....

...deletions(-) diff --git a/com32/elflink/ldlinux/cli.c b/com32/elflink/ldlinux/cli.c index 7c4f14c..a50124c 100644 --- a/com32/elflink/ldlinux/cli.c +++ b/com32/elflink/ldlinux/cli.c @@ -89,10 +89,14 @@ static const char * cmd_reverse_search(int *cursor, clock_t *kbd_to, break; } - while (!list_is_last(&last_found->list, &cli_history_head)) { + while (last_found) { p = strstr(last_found->command, buf); if (p) break; + + if (list_is_last(&last_found->list, &cli_history_head)) + break; + last_found = list_entry(last_found->list.next, type...

...d__)) && \ >> + !list_entry_is_head(va__, &(mgr__)->rb.list, rb.entry); \ >> + va__ = list_next_entry(va__, rb.entry)) > > If you define: > > static inline struct drm_gpuva * > drm_gpuva_next(struct drm_gpuva *va) > { > if (va && !list_is_last(&va->rb.entry, &va->mgr->rb.list)) > return list_next_entry(va, rb.entry); > > return NULL; > } > > the for loop becomes a bit more readable: Yes, it would. However, I don't want it to be confused with drm_gpuva_find_next(). Maybe I should rename the lat...

...BUG_ON(irq_has_action(entry->irq + i)); } - arch_teardown_msi_irqs(dev); + arch_teardown_msi_irqs(msi); - list_for_each_entry_safe(entry, tmp, &dev->msi_list, list) { + list_for_each_entry_safe(entry, tmp, &msi->msi_list, list) { if (entry->msi_attrib.is_msix) { - if (list_is_last(&entry->list, &dev->msi_list)) + if (list_is_last(&entry->list, &msi->msi_list)) iounmap(entry->mask_base); } @@ -398,38 +441,24 @@ static void free_msi_irqs(struct pci_dev *dev) list_del(&entry->list); kfree(entry); } - - if (dev->msi_ir...

...ARN_ON(!pending)) + return 0; + + while ((req = virtqueue_get_buf(viommu->vq, &len)) != NULL) { + if (req != pending) { + dev_warn(viommu->dev, "discarding stale request\n"); + continue; + } + + pending->written = len; + + if (++nr_received == nr_sent) { + WARN_ON(!list_is_last(&pending->list, sent)); + break; + } else if (WARN_ON(list_is_last(&pending->list, sent))) { + break; + } + + pending = list_next_entry(pending, list); + } + + return nr_received; +} + +static int _viommu_send_reqs_sync(struct viommu_dev *viommu, + struct viommu_request *r...

Implement the virtio-iommu driver following version 0.6 of the specification [1]. Previous version, RFCv2, was sent in November [2]. This version addresses Eric's comments and changes the device number. (Since last week I also tested and fixed the probe/release functions, they now use devm properly.) I did not include ACPI support because the next IORT specifications isn't ready yet (even

Implement the virtio-iommu driver following version 0.6 of the specification [1]. Previous version, RFCv2, was sent in November [2]. This version addresses Eric's comments and changes the device number. (Since last week I also tested and fixed the probe/release functions, they now use devm properly.) I did not include ACPI support because the next IORT specifications isn't ready yet (even

...ARN_ON(!pending)) + return 0; + + while ((req = virtqueue_get_buf(viommu->vq, &len)) != NULL) { + if (req != pending) { + dev_warn(viommu->dev, "discarding stale request\n"); + continue; + } + + pending->written = len; + + if (++nr_received == nr_sent) { + WARN_ON(!list_is_last(&pending->list, sent)); + break; + } else if (WARN_ON(list_is_last(&pending->list, sent))) { + break; + } + + pending = list_next_entry(pending, list); + } + + return nr_received; +} + +/* Must be called with request_lock held */ +static int _viommu_send_reqs_sync(struct viommu...

...> } > > - arch_teardown_msi_irqs(dev); > + arch_teardown_msi_irqs(msi); > > - list_for_each_entry_safe(entry, tmp, &dev->msi_list, list) { > + list_for_each_entry_safe(entry, tmp, &msi->msi_list, list) { > if (entry->msi_attrib.is_msix) { > - if (list_is_last(&entry->list, &dev->msi_list)) > + if (list_is_last(&entry->list, &msi->msi_list)) > iounmap(entry->mask_base); > } > > @@ -398,38 +441,24 @@ static void free_msi_irqs(struct pci_dev *dev) > list_del(&entry->list); > kfree(...

...> } > > - arch_teardown_msi_irqs(dev); > + arch_teardown_msi_irqs(msi); > > - list_for_each_entry_safe(entry, tmp, &dev->msi_list, list) { > + list_for_each_entry_safe(entry, tmp, &msi->msi_list, list) { > if (entry->msi_attrib.is_msix) { > - if (list_is_last(&entry->list, &dev->msi_list)) > + if (list_is_last(&entry->list, &msi->msi_list)) > iounmap(entry->mask_base); > } > > @@ -398,38 +441,24 @@ static void free_msi_irqs(struct pci_dev *dev) > list_del(&entry->list); > kfree(...

...q = virtqueue_get_buf(viommu->vq, &len)) != NULL) { > + if (req != pending) { > + dev_warn(viommu->dev, "discarding stale request\n"); > + continue; > + } > + > + pending->written = len; > + > + if (++nr_received == nr_sent) { > + WARN_ON(!list_is_last(&pending->list, sent)); > + break; > + } else if (WARN_ON(list_is_last(&pending->list, sent))) { > + break; > + } > + > + pending = list_next_entry(pending, list); > + } > + > + return nr_received; > +} > + > +static int _viommu_send_reqs_syn...

...d; + else + nvec = 1 << entry->msi_attrib.multiple; + for (i = 0; i < nvec; i++) + BUG_ON(irq_has_action(entry->irq + i)); + } + + arch_teardown_msi_irqs(msi); + + list_for_each_entry_safe(entry, tmp, &msi->msi_list, list) { + if (entry->msi_attrib.is_msix) { + if (list_is_last(&entry->list, &msi->msi_list)) + iounmap(entry->mask_base); + } + + /* + * Its possible that we get into this path + * When populate_msi_sysfs fails, which means the entries + * were not registered with sysfs. In that case don't + * unregister them. + */ + if (...

...q = virtqueue_get_buf(viommu->vq, &len)) != NULL) { > + if (req != pending) { > + dev_warn(viommu->dev, "discarding stale request\n"); > + continue; > + } > + > + pending->written = len; > + > + if (++nr_received == nr_sent) { > + WARN_ON(!list_is_last(&pending->list, sent)); > + break; > + } else if (WARN_ON(list_is_last(&pending->list, sent))) { > + break; > + } > + > + pending = list_next_entry(pending, list); > + } > + > + return nr_received; > +} > + > +/* Must be called with request_l...

...i_attrib.multiple; > + for (i = 0; i < nvec; i++) > + BUG_ON(irq_has_action(entry->irq + i)); > + } > + > + arch_teardown_msi_irqs(msi); > + > + list_for_each_entry_safe(entry, tmp, &msi->msi_list, list) { > + if (entry->msi_attrib.is_msix) { > + if (list_is_last(&entry->list, &msi->msi_list)) > + iounmap(entry->mask_base); > + } > + > + /* > + * Its possible that we get into this path > + * When populate_msi_sysfs fails, which means the entries > + * were not registered with sysfs. In that case don't &g...

...i_attrib.multiple; > + for (i = 0; i < nvec; i++) > + BUG_ON(irq_has_action(entry->irq + i)); > + } > + > + arch_teardown_msi_irqs(msi); > + > + list_for_each_entry_safe(entry, tmp, &msi->msi_list, list) { > + if (entry->msi_attrib.is_msix) { > + if (list_is_last(&entry->list, &msi->msi_list)) > + iounmap(entry->mask_base); > + } > + > + /* > + * Its possible that we get into this path > + * When populate_msi_sysfs fails, which means the entries > + * were not registered with sysfs. In that case don't &g...

Implement the virtio-iommu driver following version 0.5 of the specification [1]. Previous version of this code was sent back in April [2], implementing the first public RFC. Since then there has been lots of progress and discussion on the specification side, and I think the driver is in a good shape now. The reason patches 1-3 are only RFC is that I'm waiting on feedback from the Virtio TC

Implement the virtio-iommu driver following version 0.5 of the specification [1]. Previous version of this code was sent back in April [2], implementing the first public RFC. Since then there has been lots of progress and discussion on the specification side, and I think the driver is in a good shape now. The reason patches 1-3 are only RFC is that I'm waiting on feedback from the Virtio TC

Hi all, The series is a draft of generic MSI driver that supports PCI and Non-PCI device which have MSI capability. If you're not interested it, sorry for the noise. The series is based on Linux-3.16-rc1. MSI was introduced in PCI Spec 2.2. Currently, kernel MSI driver codes are bonding with PCI device. Because MSI has a lot advantages in design. More and more non-PCI devices want to use

Hi all, The series is a draft of generic MSI driver that supports PCI and Non-PCI device which have MSI capability. If you're not interested it, sorry for the noise. The series is based on Linux-3.16-rc1. MSI was introduced in PCI Spec 2.2. Currently, kernel MSI driver codes are bonding with PCI device. Because MSI has a lot advantages in design. More and more non-PCI devices want to use