lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <87e7cd70-4ab6-f33b-ce26-afe2c7c04faa@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2022 13:40:05 -0400 From: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com> To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> 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 10/3/22 13:36, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, > > On Mon, Oct 03, 2022 at 01:32:49PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote: >> What my current thinking is to make llist works with both NULL and sentinel >> terminated lockless list. Users who wish to use the sentinel terminated >> version will have to use special sentinel version of LLIST_HEAD() macro and >> llist_del_all() and __llist_del_all() functions. In this way, I don't need >> to touch an existing users of llist while minimizing code redundancy. What >> do you think? > Wouldn't that be more error-prone in the long term? I'd just bite the bullet > and convert the empty tests. It is a hassle to find them but given that it's > just the head node testing, it hopefully wouldn't be too bad. OK, I will take a further look at what changes will be needed by the existing llist users. Thanks, Longman
Powered by blists - more mailing lists