From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87B17C43142 for ; Tue, 31 Jul 2018 13:46:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24E94208A2 for ; Tue, 31 Jul 2018 13:46:22 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 24E94208A2 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=goodmis.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1732267AbeGaP0n (ORCPT ); Tue, 31 Jul 2018 11:26:43 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:60798 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1732127AbeGaP0n (ORCPT ); Tue, 31 Jul 2018 11:26:43 -0400 Received: from gandalf.local.home (cpe-66-24-56-78.stny.res.rr.com [66.24.56.78]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 37E3A2083D; Tue, 31 Jul 2018 13:46:18 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2018 09:46:16 -0400 From: Steven Rostedt To: Byungchul Park Cc: Peter Zijlstra , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@lge.com, ying.huang@intel.com, mingo@kernel.org, jiangshanlai@gmail.com, paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, josh@joshtriplett.org, mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com, joel@joelfernandes.org, len.brown@intel.com, glider@google.com, peter@hurleysoftware.com, aik@ozlabs.ru Subject: Re: [QUESTION] llist: Comment releasing 'must delete' restriction before traversing Message-ID: <20180731094616.6d70c130@gandalf.local.home> In-Reply-To: <20180731093809.GC12241@X58A-UD3R> References: <1532998716-5037-1-git-send-email-byungchul.park@lge.com> <20180731085257.GR2494@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20180731093809.GC12241@X58A-UD3R> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.16.0 (GTK+ 2.24.32; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 31 Jul 2018 18:38:09 +0900 Byungchul Park wrote: > 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. > It appears that you will only have your own users that will be doing this, correct? How many use cases have no deletion? I wouldn't change the generic comments on llist for something that's a one off and hardly used. -- Steve