Andrew Morton wrote:
>
>
>The type-unsafety of existing list_heads gives me conniptions too. Yes,
>it'd be nice to have a type-safe version available.
>
>That being said, I don't see why such a thing cannot be a wrapper around
>the existing list_head functions. Yes, there will be some ghastly
>C-templates-via-CPP stuff, best avoided by not looking at the file ;)
>
>We should aim for a complete 1:1 relationship between list_heads and
>type-safe lists. So people know what they're called, know how they work,
>etc. We shouldn't go adding things called rx_event_list_pop_back() when
>everyone has learned the existing list API.
>
>Of course, it would have been better to do this work as a completely
>separate kernel feature rather than bundling it with a filesystem. If this
>isn't a thing your team wants to take on now then yes, I'd be inclined to
>switch reiser4 to list_heads.
>
>
>
Vladimir spent 24 hours straight unsafing the lists in reiser4, and
didn't finish yet. We need 1-2 more days to address this before we can
submit reiser4. I hope this delay will not be too much of a problem.
Hans
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
| |
 |