From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Wei Yang Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] resource: Use list_head to link sibling resource Date: Tue, 8 May 2018 20:48:45 +0900 Message-ID: <20180508114845.GA19459@WeideMacBook-Pro.local> References: <20180419001848.3041-1-bhe@redhat.com> <20180419001848.3041-2-bhe@redhat.com> <20180426011837.GA79340@WeideMacBook-Pro.local> <20180507011429.GG30581@MiWiFi-R3L-srv> Reply-To: Wei Yang Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180507011429.GG30581@MiWiFi-R3L-srv> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: linux-nvdimm-bounces-hn68Rpc1hR1g9hUCZPvPmw@public.gmane.org Sender: "Linux-nvdimm" To: Baoquan He Cc: nicolas.pitre-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org, Brijesh Singh , devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, David Airlie , linux-pci-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Wei Yang , Keith Busch , Yaowei Bai , "K. Y. Srinivasan" , Frank Rowand , Lorenzo Pieralisi , Stephen Hemminger , linux-nvdimm-hn68Rpc1hR1g9hUCZPvPmw@public.gmane.org, Patrik Jakobsson , linux-input-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Borislav Petkov , Tom Lendacky , Haiyang Zhang , josh-iaAMLnmF4UmaiuxdJuQwMA@public.gmane.org, =?iso-8859-1?B?Suly9G1l?= Glisse , robh+dt-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org, Bjorn Helgaas , Thomas Gleixner , Jonathan Derrick , Greg List-Id: linux-input@vger.kernel.org On Mon, May 07, 2018 at 09:14:29AM +0800, Baoquan He wrote: >Hi Wei Yang, > >On 04/26/18 at 09:18am, Wei Yang wrote: >> On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 08:18:46AM +0800, Baoquan He wrote: >> >The struct resource uses singly linked list to link siblings. It's not >> >easy to do reverse iteration on sibling list. So replace it with list_head. >> > >> >> Hi, Baoquan >> >> Besides changing the data structure, I have another proposal to do the reverse >> iteration. Which means it would not affect other users, if you just want a >> reverse iteration. >> >> BTW, I don't think Andrew suggest to use linked-list directly. What he wants >> is a better solution to your first proposal in >> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10300819/. >> >> Below is my proposal of resource reverse iteration without changing current >> design. > >I got your mail and read it, then interrupted by other thing and forgot >replying, sorry. > >I am fine with your code change. As I said before, I have tried to change >code per reviewers' comment, then let reviewers decide which way is >better. Please feel free to post formal patches and joining discussion >about this issue. Yep, while I don't have a real requirement to add the reverse version, so what is the proper way to send a patch? A patch reply to this thread is ok? > >Thanks >Baoquan > From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pf0-x242.google.com (mail-pf0-x242.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::242]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ml01.01.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B5D77207E36CB for ; Tue, 8 May 2018 04:48:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pf0-x242.google.com with SMTP id w129so18426342pfd.3 for ; Tue, 08 May 2018 04:48:50 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 8 May 2018 20:48:45 +0900 From: Wei Yang Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] resource: Use list_head to link sibling resource Message-ID: <20180508114845.GA19459@WeideMacBook-Pro.local> References: <20180419001848.3041-1-bhe@redhat.com> <20180419001848.3041-2-bhe@redhat.com> <20180426011837.GA79340@WeideMacBook-Pro.local> <20180507011429.GG30581@MiWiFi-R3L-srv> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180507011429.GG30581@MiWiFi-R3L-srv> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: Wei Yang Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: linux-nvdimm-bounces@lists.01.org Sender: "Linux-nvdimm" To: Baoquan He Cc: nicolas.pitre@linaro.org, Brijesh Singh , devicetree@vger.kernel.org, David Airlie , linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, Wei Yang , Keith Busch , Yaowei Bai , "K. Y. Srinivasan" , Frank Rowand , Lorenzo Pieralisi , Stephen Hemminger , linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org, Patrik Jakobsson , linux-input@vger.kernel.org, Borislav Petkov , Tom Lendacky , Haiyang Zhang , josh@joshtriplett.org, =?iso-8859-1?B?Suly9G1l?= Glisse , robh+dt@kernel.org, Bjorn Helgaas , Thomas Gleixner , Jonathan Derrick , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Dmitry Torokhov , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, devel@linuxdriverproject.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org List-ID: On Mon, May 07, 2018 at 09:14:29AM +0800, Baoquan He wrote: >Hi Wei Yang, > >On 04/26/18 at 09:18am, Wei Yang wrote: >> On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 08:18:46AM +0800, Baoquan He wrote: >> >The struct resource uses singly linked list to link siblings. It's not >> >easy to do reverse iteration on sibling list. So replace it with list_head. >> > >> >> Hi, Baoquan >> >> Besides changing the data structure, I have another proposal to do the reverse >> iteration. Which means it would not affect other users, if you just want a >> reverse iteration. >> >> BTW, I don't think Andrew suggest to use linked-list directly. What he wants >> is a better solution to your first proposal in >> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10300819/. >> >> Below is my proposal of resource reverse iteration without changing current >> design. > >I got your mail and read it, then interrupted by other thing and forgot >replying, sorry. > >I am fine with your code change. As I said before, I have tried to change >code per reviewers' comment, then let reviewers decide which way is >better. Please feel free to post formal patches and joining discussion >about this issue. Yep, while I don't have a real requirement to add the reverse version, so what is the proper way to send a patch? A patch reply to this thread is ok? > >Thanks >Baoquan > _______________________________________________ Linux-nvdimm mailing list Linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-nvdimm From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pf0-f194.google.com ([209.85.192.194]:39195 "EHLO mail-pf0-f194.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753368AbeEHLsu (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 May 2018 07:48:50 -0400 Date: Tue, 8 May 2018 20:48:45 +0900 From: Wei Yang To: Baoquan He Cc: Wei Yang , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, robh+dt@kernel.org, dan.j.williams@intel.com, nicolas.pitre@linaro.org, josh@joshtriplett.org, Patrik Jakobsson , David Airlie , "K. Y. Srinivasan" , Haiyang Zhang , Stephen Hemminger , Dmitry Torokhov , Frank Rowand , Keith Busch , Jonathan Derrick , Lorenzo Pieralisi , Bjorn Helgaas , Thomas Gleixner , Brijesh Singh , =?iso-8859-1?B?Suly9G1l?= Glisse , Borislav Petkov , Tom Lendacky , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Yaowei Bai , devel@linuxdriverproject.org, linux-input@vger.kernel.org, linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] resource: Use list_head to link sibling resource Message-ID: <20180508114845.GA19459@WeideMacBook-Pro.local> Reply-To: Wei Yang References: <20180419001848.3041-1-bhe@redhat.com> <20180419001848.3041-2-bhe@redhat.com> <20180426011837.GA79340@WeideMacBook-Pro.local> <20180507011429.GG30581@MiWiFi-R3L-srv> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20180507011429.GG30581@MiWiFi-R3L-srv> Sender: linux-pci-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, May 07, 2018 at 09:14:29AM +0800, Baoquan He wrote: >Hi Wei Yang, > >On 04/26/18 at 09:18am, Wei Yang wrote: >> On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 08:18:46AM +0800, Baoquan He wrote: >> >The struct resource uses singly linked list to link siblings. It's not >> >easy to do reverse iteration on sibling list. So replace it with list_head. >> > >> >> Hi, Baoquan >> >> Besides changing the data structure, I have another proposal to do the reverse >> iteration. Which means it would not affect other users, if you just want a >> reverse iteration. >> >> BTW, I don't think Andrew suggest to use linked-list directly. What he wants >> is a better solution to your first proposal in >> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10300819/. >> >> Below is my proposal of resource reverse iteration without changing current >> design. > >I got your mail and read it, then interrupted by other thing and forgot >replying, sorry. > >I am fine with your code change. As I said before, I have tried to change >code per reviewers' comment, then let reviewers decide which way is >better. Please feel free to post formal patches and joining discussion >about this issue. Yep, while I don't have a real requirement to add the reverse version, so what is the proper way to send a patch? A patch reply to this thread is ok? > >Thanks >Baoquan >