[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180731093809.GC12241@X58A-UD3R>
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2018 18:38:09 +0900
From: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@....com,
ying.huang@...el.com, 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 10:52:57AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 09:58:36AM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> > 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?
>
> Yes you can, but I'm not sure it makes much sense to confuse the
> comments with this.
>
> This really ends up in the 'you had better know what you're doing'
> category.
Partially agree with you. But why not add more explanation?
If you think the comment confuse us, then it's ok to keep it itself.
Thanks.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists