[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180508114845.GA19459@WeideMacBook-Pro.local>
Date: Tue, 8 May 2018 20:48:45 +0900
From: Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@...il.com>
To: Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>
Cc: Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, robh+dt@...nel.org,
dan.j.williams@...el.com, nicolas.pitre@...aro.org,
josh@...htriplett.org,
Patrik Jakobsson <patrik.r.jakobsson@...il.com>,
David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
"K. Y. Srinivasan" <kys@...rosoft.com>,
Haiyang Zhang <haiyangz@...rosoft.com>,
Stephen Hemminger <sthemmin@...rosoft.com>,
Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>,
Keith Busch <keith.busch@...el.com>,
Jonathan Derrick <jonathan.derrick@...el.com>,
Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@....com>,
Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>,
Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Yaowei Bai <baiyaowei@...s.chinamobile.com>,
devel@...uxdriverproject.org, linux-input@...r.kernel.org,
linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-pci@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] resource: Use list_head to link sibling resource
On Mon, May 07, 2018 at 09:14:29AM +0800, Baoquan He wrote:
>Hi Wei Yang,
>
>On 04/26/18 at 09:18am, Wei Yang wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 08:18:46AM +0800, Baoquan He wrote:
>> >The struct resource uses singly linked list to link siblings. It's not
>> >easy to do reverse iteration on sibling list. So replace it with list_head.
>> >
>>
>> Hi, Baoquan
>>
>> Besides changing the data structure, I have another proposal to do the reverse
>> iteration. Which means it would not affect other users, if you just want a
>> reverse iteration.
>>
>> BTW, I don't think Andrew suggest to use linked-list directly. What he wants
>> is a better solution to your first proposal in
>> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10300819/.
>>
>> Below is my proposal of resource reverse iteration without changing current
>> design.
>
>I got your mail and read it, then interrupted by other thing and forgot
>replying, sorry.
>
>I am fine with your code change. As I said before, I have tried to change
>code per reviewers' comment, then let reviewers decide which way is
>better. Please feel free to post formal patches and joining discussion
>about this issue.
Yep, while I don't have a real requirement to add the reverse version, so what
is the proper way to send a patch?
A patch reply to this thread is ok?
>
>Thanks
>Baoquan
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists