Re: [patch] sys_epoll 0.14 ...

[Andrew Morton <akpm@digeo.com>]

Davide Libenzi wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, Andrew Morton wrote:
> 
> > Davide Libenzi wrote:
> > >
> > > Thanks to Andrew and John suggestions I coded another version of the
> > > sys_epoll patch ( 0.13 skipped ... superstition :) ). I won't send the
> > > patch to not waste bandwidth, the patch is available here :
> > >
> > > http://www.xmailserver.org/linux-patches/sys_epoll-2.5.44-last.diff
> > >
> > > Comments are welcome ...
> > >
> >
> > Looking good to me, Davide.  I think you've nailed everything there
> > except:
> >
> > - Do we want to introduce new list macros, or change epoll a little
> >   to use the existing list manipulators (I think the latter)
> 
> Andrew, sys_epoll uses linux/list.h interface. Doesn't it ?

I was referring to these guys:

+#define list_first(head)	(((head)->next != (head)) ? (head)->next: (struct list_head *) 0)
+#define list_last(head)	(((head)->prev != (head)) ? (head)->prev: (struct list_head *) 0)
+#define list_next(pos, head)	(((pos)->next != (head)) ? (pos)->next: (struct list_head *) 0)
+#define list_prev(pos, head)	(((pos)->prev != (head)) ? (pos)->prev: (struct list_head *) 0)

if we are to add such things to list.h then lots of people need
to hum and hah over them first and ask questions like "why doesn't
it use list_empty?"  ;)

It would be better to recode epoll's list walks to use the existing
list accessors.