On Fri, Oct 03, 2008 at 08:06:19AM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
quoted text
> On Thu, Oct 02, 2008 at 03:17:45PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > > +struct klist_waiter {
> > > +	struct klist_waiter *next;
> > > +	struct klist_node *node;
> > > +	struct task_struct *process;
> > > +	int woken;
> > > +};
> > 
> > Why not use the built-in list.h functions here?
> 
> I'm somewhat averse to using data structures when they do more than I
> need them to.

But part of the point is that if you use them, no one has to audit your
logic to make sure you got it all correct.

quoted text
> list_heads are great for when you need to remove an entry
> from the middle of a list, but there are no advantages to using a
> doubly-linked list here -- we always walk it from the start to the end,
> and a singly linked list is fine for this purpose.  Maybe we need a set
> of 'slist' macros so we can use singly-linked-lists without thinking
> terribly hard, but I'd hate to see this patch get stuck behind
> infrastructure improvements.

Is size an issue here?  I don't think so and I'd prefer it to be changed
to use the standard list implementation and not roll your own.  You
never know who will cut-and-paste you code these days :)

Care to respin this?

thanks,

greg k-h
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/