On 12/05/2012 10:46 PM, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
So I've been thinking about this patch some more.. Although I do like the micro-op of dropping the extra INIT_LIST_HEAD() when it's really unnecessary, it makes me more nervous to mix and match cases like this if member -> container usage ever changed for a specific list_head in the future.
You should not make such a change like you would a second semicolon. If you change a struct from being a member to become a container I _would_ change its name so it is clear and let the compiler assist me in auditing all users for proper usage. This is a bigger change, I mean you change a complete struct and the code logic from being a container to being an element or the other way around. I *think* the missing list head init here is the smallest problem here. I *tried* to audit all members, wrote a small list of the member and the container(s) it uses and found two list_heads with no users besides the INIT_LIST_HEAD(). I know that this is not even close to the memory over commit I posted earlier but it is something :)
So that said, I'm skipping this one for the moment. --nab
Sebastian -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe target-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
