On Wed, 20 Mar 2013, Greg Freemyer wrote:
> "Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >Quoting Arlie Stephens <arlie@xxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> >
> >> Interestingly, part of the debate yesterday probably resulted from
> >one
> >> engineer having Love's 2nd edition, and me having his 3rd
> >> edition. Apparently RPDay pointed out some problems to Love which
> >> resulted in him changing his linked list discussion in his 3rd
> >> edition ;-)
> >
> > Been a while since I re-read my own tutorial, it might merit a bit of
> >a rewrite. Is there anything about it that seems unclear -- I remember
> >my own moment of epiphany, "Holy crap, what an interesting way to do
> >it."
> >
> > And, yes, if you try to reconcile Love's 2nd and 3rd editions on the
> >topic, that will not end well. :-)
> >
> >rday
> >
>
> Robert,
>
> I read it briefly yesterday. I don't recall it having an example like:
"it" being ... ?
> Instantiate head pointer
> Add 2 or 3 list members
> Walk list and printk a object member
>
> I find examples like that make all the difference for me.
i agree completely that a simple picture of an "empty" list showing
that it consisted of an initial "struct list_head" would have been
amazingly useful. i'm in the midst of (fingers crossed) moving my
entire site to a different technology, part of which should support
drawing cool diagrams with a minimum of fuss. at which point most of
my stuff will be totally rewritten. yes, i love diagrams.
rday
--
========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA
http://crashcourse.ca
Twitter: http://twitter.com/rpjday
LinkedIn: http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rpjday
========================================================================
_______________________________________________
Kernelnewbies mailing list
Kernelnewbies@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies
