On 12/16/23 16:18, Kent Overstreet wrote: > On Sat, Dec 16, 2023 at 04:04:43PM -0800, Randy Dunlap wrote: >> >> >> On 12/16/23 14:35, Kent Overstreet wrote: >>> On Sat, Dec 16, 2023 at 06:13:41AM +0000, Matthew Wilcox wrote: >>>> On Fri, Dec 15, 2023 at 10:35:47PM -0500, Kent Overstreet wrote: >>>>> - INIT_HLIST_NODE(¬ifier->link); >>>>> + /* INIT_HLIST_NODE() open coded, to avoid dependency on list.h */ >>>>> + notifier->link.next = NULL; >>>>> + notifier->link.pprev = NULL; >>>> >>>> Arguably INIT_HLIST_NODE() belongs in types.h -- we already have >>>> RCUREF_INIT() and ATOMIC_INIT() in there. >>> >>> I think I'd prefer to keep types.h as minimal as possible - as soon as >>> we start putting non type stuff in there people won't know what the >>> distinction is and it'll grow. >>> >>> preempt.h is a bit unusual too, normally we'd just split out a _types.h >>> header there but it's not so easy to split up usefully. >>> >> >> I don't feel like I have NAK power, but if I did, I would NAK >> open coding of INIT_HLIST_HEAD() or anything like it. >> I would expect some $maintainer to do likewise, but I could be >> surprised. > > It's INIT_HLIST_HEAD(), there's approximately zero chance of the > implementation changing, and there's a comment. s/_HEAD/_NODE/ for both of us. :) -- #Randy https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette https://subspace.kernel.org/etiquette.html
