Hi Chris, On 12 July 2017 at 18:03, Christopher Li <sparse@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 8:56 AM, Dibyendu Majumdar > <mobile@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >> >> Okay - but is your approach generic enough? What if there was a split >> in the node that you copied? I don't have a full understanding but it >> appears to be a very specific solution rather than a general one. > > You have a very good point. I have never thought about splitting the > node. If split the node then there will be some ptr iterate twice. Because > some node move to the next bucket and the dup node know nothing > about it. It would be a problem for the existing code as well. > > My ptrlist ref count patch haven't check the split node situation. > Even Luc's suggestion for "mark and sweep" to delete the ptrlist > is not going to help with the nested loop split. I will add that check. > I don't expect new offenders but let's make sure about it. > I did raise this before (http://marc.info/?l=linux-sparse&m=149943353732715&w=2) but maybe it got lost in the other stuff. > It means it would be so much nicer if we can avoid nested loop modify at all. > I agree with that - traversing a list that is also being modified by recursive code is pretty hard to get right. >> I was just saying that you can use the standard /existing iterator >> macros once you have duplicated the list. > > It was not mean to a temporary fix not generic. But may be just add > a function for duplicate list is needed for long run. > > We try to avoid nest loop modify, if it has to be done. Outer loop > use a duplicated list. > Personally I think that is a reasonable approach. Regards Dibyendu -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sparse" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
