[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <47DAFAA2.20302@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 18:22:26 -0400
From: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...hat.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
CC: ananth@...ibm.com, jkenisto@...ibm.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, systemtap@...rces.redhat.com,
prasanna@...ibm.com, shaohua.li@...el.com, davem@...emloft.net,
fche@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm 1/5] list.h: add list_singleton
Andrew Morton wrote:
> If your usage pattern is:
>
> struct foo {
> ...
> struct list_head bar_list; /* A list of `struct bar's */
> };
>
> struct bar {
> struct list_head list; /* Attached to foo.bar_list */
> ...
> };
>
> then yes, list_singleton() makes sense.
>
> But in other usage patterns it does not:
>
> struct foo {
> struct bar *bar_list;
> ...
> };
>
> struct bar {
> struct list_head list; /* All the other bars go here */
> ...
> };
>
> In the second case, emptiness is signified by foo.bar_list==NULL. And in
> this case, code which does
>
> if (foo->bar_list && list_singleton(&foo->bar_list->list))
>
> will fail if there is a single item on the list!
>
> The second usage pattern is uncommon and list_empty() also returns
> misleading answers when list_heads are used this way.
I agreed. I assume that list_singleton() is used like as list_empty().
> So I guess we can proceed with your list_singleton(), but I'd just like to
> flag this possible confusion, see what people think..
Thank you,
--
Masami Hiramatsu
Software Engineer
Hitachi Computer Products (America) Inc.
Software Solutions Division
e-mail: mhiramat@...hat.com
--
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