[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YzsUgY4CC0SH8Sl2@slm.duckdns.org>
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2022 06:57:37 -1000
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Ming Lei <ming.lei@...hat.com>,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Michal Koutný <mkoutny@...e.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 1/3] llist: Add a lock-less list variant terminated by
a sentinel node
On Mon, Oct 03, 2022 at 12:55:24PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> That was my original plan. However, after looking at some existing users of
> lockless list, they have coded in the dependency on the fact that a lockless
> list is empty if it is NULL. I guess I can make this true also for the new
> lockless list with sentinel at the expense of a bit more overhead in the
> entry insertion path and deletion path. I will take a further look at that.
There aren't that many users of llist. Maybe it'd be easier / cleaner to
introduce a macro to test whether a llist is empty and replace the NULL
tests?
Thanks.
--
tejun
Powered by blists - more mailing lists