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=-2.5 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_MUTT 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 B1BA9C28CF6 for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2018 05:35:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F28120844 for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2018 05:35:42 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 6F28120844 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=lge.com 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 S1733126AbeHAHT3 (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Aug 2018 03:19:29 -0400 Received: from lgeamrelo13.lge.com ([156.147.23.53]:37182 "EHLO lgeamrelo11.lge.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1731897AbeHAHT3 (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Aug 2018 03:19:29 -0400 Received: from unknown (HELO lgeamrelo02.lge.com) (156.147.1.126) by 156.147.23.53 with ESMTP; 1 Aug 2018 14:35:28 +0900 X-Original-SENDERIP: 156.147.1.126 X-Original-MAILFROM: byungchul.park@lge.com Received: from unknown (HELO X58A-UD3R) (10.177.222.33) by 156.147.1.126 with ESMTP; 1 Aug 2018 14:35:28 +0900 X-Original-SENDERIP: 10.177.222.33 X-Original-MAILFROM: byungchul.park@lge.com Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2018 14:35:21 +0900 From: Byungchul Park To: Steven Rostedt 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: <20180801053521.GB25338@X58A-UD3R> References: <1532998716-5037-1-git-send-email-byungchul.park@lge.com> <20180731085257.GR2494@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20180731093809.GC12241@X58A-UD3R> <20180731094616.6d70c130@gandalf.local.home> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180731094616.6d70c130@gandalf.local.home> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 09:46:16AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > 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. Thanks for the comment. OK. > -- Steve