linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Remove completion from struct klist

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

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 3 Oct 2008 08:06:19 -0600
From:	Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>
To:	Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove completion from struct klist_node

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.  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.

-- 
Matthew Wilcox				Intel Open Source Technology Centre
"Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this
operating system, but compare it to ours.  We can't possibly take such
a retrograde step."
--
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/