lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2012 22:26:54 -0400 From: Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com> To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> CC: paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, dipankar@...ibm.com, mingo@...nel.org, hpa@...or.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, peter.senna@...il.com Subject: Re: [RFC] hlist: drop the node parameter from iterators On 11/01/2012 08:59 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 4:06 PM, Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com> wrote: >> I'm not sure why, but the hlist for each entry iterators were conceived >> differently from the list ones. While the list ones are nice and elegant: >> >> list_for_each_entry(pos, head, member) >> >> The hlist ones were greedy and wanted an extra parameter: >> >> hlist_for_each_entry(tpos, pos, head, member) >> >> Why did they need an extra pos parameter? I'm not quite sure. Not only >> they don't really need it, it also prevents the iterator from looking >> exactly like the list iterator, which is unfortunate. >> >> [..] >> 170 files changed, 481 insertions(+), 879 deletions(-) >> >> Yes, beyond making hlist prettier, we also drop 400 lines. win-win? > > So this has been discussed before, and one of the problems with this > is just the pain of maintenance. This tends to cause annoyances for > merging, but also for -stable backporting etc, because it just results > in a lot of noise. > > Now, the hlist_for_each() case isn't used by quite as many sites as > some of the others helpers like this, so maybe the pain isn't horribly > bad, but in general I do tend to get nervous about "let's clean it up" > when it touches hundreds of files. > > Your thing looks nice in that it has the coccinelle script (which > hopefully means that we really get them all), but just out of > interest, how different is the patch after running the script on both > > (a) my current -git head > (b) linux-next > > because differences (other than just line numbers) imply conflicts. > How many differences are we talking about? None? Two? Twenty? > > (That said, right now linux-next is tiny. It might be more interesting > to look at the linux-3.5 vs linux-3.6 to get more of a feel for > differences between releases. Doing just the diff+grep thing, there's > quite a few changes around hlist_for_each_entry() uses) Instead of diffing diffs, I've just tried applying different versions of the patch of different trees, and then looking at how many conflicts happen as a result of that. I think it's probably a good indication of how many conflicts this change would really cause. Here are some stats: - Applying the patch from -next on top of your current git head results in 3 conflicts. - Applying the patch from your current git head on top of v3.6 results in 18 conflicts. - Applying the patch from 3.6 on top of 3.5 results in 25 conflicts. Thanks, Sasha -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists