On Thu, 2012-12-06 at 19:52 +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > 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. > Yes, I'd like to see this included in the patch ahead of a target-pending/for-next merge. > 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 :) > I don't disagree with the value of this path, but at this point the for-3.8 diffstat is looking pretty large: 47 files changed, 2778 insertions(+), 3977 deletions(-) So given what's in flight now for v3.8, let's hold off one this until it can more testing before heading to mainline, OK..? --nab -- 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
