[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180508121123.GI30581@MiWiFi-R3L-srv>
Date: Tue, 8 May 2018 20:11:23 +0800
From: Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>
To: Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@...il.com>
Cc: 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 05/08/18 at 08:48pm, Wei Yang wrote:
> 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?
I am not sure either. Since my patches are still under reviewing. And
you have pasted your patch. It depends on maintainers, mainly Andrew and
other reviewers who have concerns.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists