[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <471D145A.40904@garzik.org>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 17:21:30 -0400
From: Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
To: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
CC: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
Linux Kernel Development <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
mingo@...e.hu, Linux/m68k <linux-m68k@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/10] Change table chaining layout
Alan Cox wrote:
> Why can't we just make the list one item longer than the entry count and
> stick a NULL on the end of it like normal people ?
Certainly seems safer than the current "let's run off the end of the
list if anything bad happens" setup... And I do not think allocating
n+1 scatterlist entries will have much of a negative impact.
Jeff
-
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