Commit 205a8eb7 authored by Stephen Warren's avatar Stephen Warren Committed by Rob Herring

dtc: fix for_each_*() to skip first object if deleted

The previous definition of for_each_*() would always include the very
first object within the list, irrespective of whether it was marked
deleted, since the deleted flag was not checked on the first object,
but only on any "next" object.

Fix for_each_*() to check the deleted flag in the loop body every
iteration to correct this.

(upstream dtc commit 1762ab42ef77db7ab2776d0d6cba3515150f518a)
Signed-off-by: default avatarStephen Warren <swarren@nvidia.com>
Signed-off-by: default avatarRob Herring <rob.herring@calxeda.com>
parent 24fb530f
......@@ -161,51 +161,27 @@ struct node {
struct label *labels;
};
static inline struct label *for_each_label_next(struct label *l)
{
do {
l = l->next;
} while (l && l->deleted);
return l;
}
#define for_each_label(l0, l) \
for ((l) = (l0); (l); (l) = for_each_label_next(l))
#define for_each_label_withdel(l0, l) \
for ((l) = (l0); (l); (l) = (l)->next)
static inline struct property *for_each_property_next(struct property *p)
{
do {
p = p->next;
} while (p && p->deleted);
return p;
}
#define for_each_property(n, p) \
for ((p) = (n)->proplist; (p); (p) = for_each_property_next(p))
#define for_each_label(l0, l) \
for_each_label_withdel(l0, l) \
if (!(l)->deleted)
#define for_each_property_withdel(n, p) \
for ((p) = (n)->proplist; (p); (p) = (p)->next)
static inline struct node *for_each_child_next(struct node *c)
{
do {
c = c->next_sibling;
} while (c && c->deleted);
return c;
}
#define for_each_child(n, c) \
for ((c) = (n)->children; (c); (c) = for_each_child_next(c))
#define for_each_property(n, p) \
for_each_property_withdel(n, p) \
if (!(p)->deleted)
#define for_each_child_withdel(n, c) \
for ((c) = (n)->children; (c); (c) = (c)->next_sibling)
#define for_each_child(n, c) \
for_each_child_withdel(n, c) \
if (!(c)->deleted)
void add_label(struct label **labels, char *label);
void delete_labels(struct label **labels);
......
Markdown is supported
0%
or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment