From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: David Laight <David.Laight@aculab.com>
Cc: "devel@driverdev.osuosl.org" <devel@driverdev.osuosl.org>,
"bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org"
<bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
"b.a.t.m.a.n@lists.open-mesh.org"
<b.a.t.m.a.n@lists.open-mesh.org>,
"netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
'Ken Helias' <kenhelias@firemail.de>,
lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org"
<dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
"linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [B.A.T.M.A.N.] [PATCH] list: Fix order of arguments for hlist_add_after(_rcu)
Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2014 10:22:51 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140606172250.GN4581@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <063D6719AE5E284EB5DD2968C1650D6D17258AEA@AcuExch.aculab.com>
On Fri, Jun 06, 2014 at 03:56:52PM +0000, David Laight wrote:
> From: Behalf Of Ken Helias
> > All other add functions for lists have the new item as first argument and the
> > position where it is added as second argument. This was changed for no good
> > reason in this function and makes using it unnecessary confusing.
> >
> > Also the naming of the arguments in hlist_add_after was confusing. It was
> > changed to use the same names as hlist_add_after_rcu.
> ...
> > -static inline void hlist_add_after_rcu(struct hlist_node *prev,
> > - struct hlist_node *n)
> > +static inline void hlist_add_after_rcu(struct hlist_node *n,
> > + struct hlist_node *prev)
>
> It is rather a shame that the change doesn't generate a compilation
> error for old source files.
I am also a bit concerned by this.
Thanx, Paul
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: David Laight <David.Laight@aculab.com>
Cc: "devel@driverdev.osuosl.org" <devel@driverdev.osuosl.org>,
"bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org"
<bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
"b.a.t.m.a.n@lists.open-mesh.org"
<b.a.t.m.a.n@lists.open-mesh.org>,
"netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
'Ken Helias' <kenhelias@firemail.de>,
lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org"
<dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
"linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Bridge] [PATCH] list: Fix order of arguments for hlist_add_after(_rcu)
Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2014 10:22:51 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140606172250.GN4581@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <063D6719AE5E284EB5DD2968C1650D6D17258AEA@AcuExch.aculab.com>
On Fri, Jun 06, 2014 at 03:56:52PM +0000, David Laight wrote:
> From: Behalf Of Ken Helias
> > All other add functions for lists have the new item as first argument and the
> > position where it is added as second argument. This was changed for no good
> > reason in this function and makes using it unnecessary confusing.
> >
> > Also the naming of the arguments in hlist_add_after was confusing. It was
> > changed to use the same names as hlist_add_after_rcu.
> ...
> > -static inline void hlist_add_after_rcu(struct hlist_node *prev,
> > - struct hlist_node *n)
> > +static inline void hlist_add_after_rcu(struct hlist_node *n,
> > + struct hlist_node *prev)
>
> It is rather a shame that the change doesn't generate a compilation
> error for old source files.
I am also a bit concerned by this.
Thanx, Paul
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: David Laight <David.Laight@aculab.com>
Cc: "devel@driverdev.osuosl.org" <devel@driverdev.osuosl.org>,
"bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org"
<bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
"b.a.t.m.a.n@lists.open-mesh.org"
<b.a.t.m.a.n@lists.open-mesh.org>,
"netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
'Ken Helias' <kenhelias@firemail.de>,
lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org"
<dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
"linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] list: Fix order of arguments for hlist_add_after(_rcu)
Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2014 10:22:51 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140606172250.GN4581@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <063D6719AE5E284EB5DD2968C1650D6D17258AEA@AcuExch.aculab.com>
On Fri, Jun 06, 2014 at 03:56:52PM +0000, David Laight wrote:
> From: Behalf Of Ken Helias
> > All other add functions for lists have the new item as first argument and the
> > position where it is added as second argument. This was changed for no good
> > reason in this function and makes using it unnecessary confusing.
> >
> > Also the naming of the arguments in hlist_add_after was confusing. It was
> > changed to use the same names as hlist_add_after_rcu.
> ...
> > -static inline void hlist_add_after_rcu(struct hlist_node *prev,
> > - struct hlist_node *n)
> > +static inline void hlist_add_after_rcu(struct hlist_node *n,
> > + struct hlist_node *prev)
>
> It is rather a shame that the change doesn't generate a compilation
> error for old source files.
I am also a bit concerned by this.
Thanx, Paul
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: David Laight <David.Laight@aculab.com>
Cc: "'Ken Helias'" <kenhelias@firemail.de>,
lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org"
<dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
"netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
"devel@driverdev.osuosl.org" <devel@driverdev.osuosl.org>,
"linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
"b.a.t.m.a.n@lists.open-mesh.org"
<b.a.t.m.a.n@lists.open-mesh.org>,
"bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org"
<bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] list: Fix order of arguments for hlist_add_after(_rcu)
Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2014 10:22:51 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140606172250.GN4581@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <063D6719AE5E284EB5DD2968C1650D6D17258AEA@AcuExch.aculab.com>
On Fri, Jun 06, 2014 at 03:56:52PM +0000, David Laight wrote:
> From: Behalf Of Ken Helias
> > All other add functions for lists have the new item as first argument and the
> > position where it is added as second argument. This was changed for no good
> > reason in this function and makes using it unnecessary confusing.
> >
> > Also the naming of the arguments in hlist_add_after was confusing. It was
> > changed to use the same names as hlist_add_after_rcu.
> ...
> > -static inline void hlist_add_after_rcu(struct hlist_node *prev,
> > - struct hlist_node *n)
> > +static inline void hlist_add_after_rcu(struct hlist_node *n,
> > + struct hlist_node *prev)
>
> It is rather a shame that the change doesn't generate a compilation
> error for old source files.
I am also a bit concerned by this.
Thanx, Paul
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-06-06 17:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-06-06 9:42 [B.A.T.M.A.N.] [PATCH] list: Fix order of arguments for hlist_add_after(_rcu) Ken Helias
2014-06-06 9:42 ` Ken Helias
2014-06-06 9:42 ` Ken Helias
2014-06-06 9:42 ` [Bridge] " Ken Helias
2014-06-06 15:50 ` [B.A.T.M.A.N.] " Greg KH
2014-06-06 15:50 ` Greg KH
2014-06-06 15:50 ` Greg KH
2014-06-06 15:50 ` [Bridge] " Greg KH
2014-06-06 15:56 ` [B.A.T.M.A.N.] " David Laight
2014-06-06 15:56 ` David Laight
2014-06-06 15:56 ` David Laight
2014-06-06 15:56 ` [Bridge] " David Laight
2014-06-06 17:22 ` Paul E. McKenney [this message]
2014-06-06 17:22 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-06-06 17:22 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-06-06 17:22 ` [Bridge] " Paul E. McKenney
2014-06-07 6:45 ` [B.A.T.M.A.N.] " Andrew Morton
2014-06-07 6:45 ` Andrew Morton
2014-06-07 6:45 ` Andrew Morton
2014-06-07 6:45 ` [Bridge] " Andrew Morton
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2014-08-15 11:38 [B.A.T.M.A.N.] [PATCH] list: fix " Sven Eckelmann
2014-11-09 4:29 ` Marek Lindner
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20140606172250.GN4581@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=David.Laight@aculab.com \
--cc=b.a.t.m.a.n@lists.open-mesh.org \
--cc=bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org \
--cc=devel@driverdev.osuosl.org \
--cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=kenhelias@firemail.de \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.