On Thu, 28 Aug 2008, Andrew Morton wrote:
quoted text
> > 
> > The lock is also promoted to irq-safe (suggested by Dan).
> 
> What was the reason for this other change?  I'm sure Dan is a fine chap,
> but we usually prefer a little more justification for changes ;)

I added the info already, when I applied it to the tip-tree.

quoted text
> > +		/* Now free them */
> > +		hlist_for_each_entry_safe(obj, node, tmp, &freelist, node) {
> > +			hlist_del(&obj->node);
> > +			free_object(obj);
> 
> I suspect that we can avoid the hlist_del() here, perhaps with a little
> effort.
> 
> > +
> > +		/* Now free them */
> > +		hlist_for_each_entry_safe(obj, node, tmp, &freelist, node) {
> > +			hlist_del(&obj->node);
> > +			free_object(obj);
> > +		}
> > +
> 
> and the other one.
> 
> But I'm not sure that it's worth putting effort into - leaving dead
> objects strung onto a partially-live list is a little bit smelly IMO.

I really feel better, when we delete them instead of throwing them
away with pointers to each other.

Thanks,

	tglx
--
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/