[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180731052551.GA12241@X58A-UD3R>
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2018 14:25:51 +0900
From: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>
To: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@....com,
peterz@...radead.org, mingo@...nel.org, jiangshanlai@...il.com,
paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, josh@...htriplett.org,
rostedt@...dmis.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
joel@...lfernandes.org, len.brown@...el.com, glider@...gle.com,
peter@...leysoftware.com, aik@...abs.ru
Subject: Re: [QUESTION] llist: Comment releasing 'must delete' restriction
before traversing
On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 09:37:50AM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote:
> Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com> writes:
>
> > Hello folks,
> >
> > I'm careful in saying.. and curious about..
> >
> > In restrictive cases like only addtions happen but never deletion, can't
> > we safely traverse a llist? I believe llist can be more useful if we can
> > release the restriction. Can't we?
> >
> > If yes, we may add another function traversing starting from a head. Or
> > just use existing funtion with head->first.
> >
> > Thank a lot for your answers in advance :)
>
> What's the use case? I don't know how it is useful that items are never
> deleted from the llist.
>
> Some other locks could be used to provide mutual exclusive between
>
> - llist add, llist traverse
Hello Huang,
In my use case, I only do adding and traversing on a llist.
>
> and
>
> - llist delete
Of course, I will use a lock when deletion is needed.
So.. in the case only adding into and traversing a llist is needed,
can't we safely traverse a llist in the way I thought? Or am I missing
something?
Thank you.
> Is this your use case?
>
> Best Regards,
> Huang, Ying
Powered by blists - more mailing lists