Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 26 Sep 2002 15:40:59 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 26 Sep 2002 15:40:58 -0400 Received: from ptldme-smtp2.maine.rr.com ([204.210.65.67]:57060 "EHLO ptldme-mls2.maine.rr.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 26 Sep 2002 15:40:58 -0400 Message-ID: <3D9364C5.9060208@maine.rr.com> Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 15:49:25 -0400 From: "David B. Stevens" Organization: Penguin Preservation Society User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.1) Gecko/20020826 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rik van Riel CC: Thunder from the hill , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: [PATCH][2.5] Single linked lists for Linux, overly complicated v2 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 888 Lines: 35 Rik, I respectfully disagree, it is well known that systems are far more stable when running on empty lists, routines like this get us there faster. Cheers, Dave PS:Is it April in September? Rik van Riel wrote: > On Thu, 26 Sep 2002, Thunder from the hill wrote: > > >>We don't know the parent structure. We shouldn't know it, since it takes >>time. So I try to keep the address pointer stable instead of just >>exchanging pointers. > > > In the case of slist_del() you HAVE to know it. > > Think about removing a single entry from the middle of > the list ... the entries before and after need to stay > on the list. > > Rik - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/