[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190820172629.GB4949@bombadil.infradead.org>
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2019 10:26:29 -0700
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
Cc: Wei Yang <richardw.yang@...ux.intel.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mgorman@...hsingularity.net,
osalvador@...e.de, linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] mm/mmap.c: extract __vma_unlink_list as counter part
for __vma_link_list
On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 11:19:37AM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 8/14/19 8:57 AM, Wei Yang wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 10:16:11PM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> >>Btw, is there any good reason we don't use a list_head for vma linkage?
> >
> > Not sure, maybe there is some historical reason?
>
> Seems it was single-linked until 2010 commit 297c5eee3724 ("mm: make the vma
> list be doubly linked") and I guess it was just simpler to add the vm_prev link.
>
> Conversion to list_head might be an interesting project for some "advanced
> beginner" in the kernel :)
I'm working to get rid of vm_prev and vm_next, so it would probably be
wasted effort.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists