Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S269781AbUJMS42 (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Oct 2004 14:56:28 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S269784AbUJMS42 (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Oct 2004 14:56:28 -0400 Received: from zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com ([47.129.242.57]:4784 "EHLO zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S269781AbUJMS41 (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Oct 2004 14:56:27 -0400 Message-ID: <416D7A0E.50503@nortelnetworks.com> Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 12:55:10 -0600 X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: Chris Friesen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Matthias Urlichs CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: single linked list header in kernel? References: <416C1F48.4040407@nortelnetworks.com> <416D4255.9080501@nortelnetworks.com> In-Reply-To: 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: 729 Lines: 18 Matthias Urlichs wrote: > I dunno, though -- open-coding a singly-linked list isn't that much of a > problem; compared to a doubly-linked one, there's simply fewer things that > can go horribly wrong. :-/ True. This is likely why it hasn't yet been done. I wonder how many places use the double-linked lists because they're there, not because they actually need them. If its significant, there could be some space savings due to only needing one pointer rather than two. Chris - 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/