On Thu, Feb 16, 2023 at 02:26:50PM +0000, Tomer Tayar wrote: > > This looks suspicious, I think hnode can be not-NULL here and has > > hnode->vaddr different than searched addr, in case there is > > hash collision and we iterate over hlist where there is no > > searched addr. Not 100% sure about that though. > > > > I think would be better to provide helper like this: > > > > hash_for_each_possible(ctx->mem_hash, hnode, node, (unsigned > > long)addr) > > if (addr == hnode->vaddr) > > return hnode; > > return NULL; > > > > which is basically standard way how hash_for_each_possible() used. > > > > > > Regards > > Stanislaw > > Thanks Stanislaw, we will add such a helper and use it here and in another > place with a similar pattern. > If that is okay, we will do it in another patch, as this one only moves an > existing function for code reuse.
Sure, no problem with that. Regards Stanislaw
