From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hans Reiser Subject: Re: List of things requested by lkml for reiser4 inclusion (to review) Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 11:08:37 -0700 Message-ID: <4325C425.4030002@namesys.com> References: <200509091817.39726.zam@namesys.com> <4321C806.60404@namesys.com> <20050909144142.0f96802f.akpm@osdl.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Errors-To: flx@namesys.com In-Reply-To: <20050909144142.0f96802f.akpm@osdl.org> List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Andrew Morton Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Reiserfs-Dev@namesys.com, reiserfs-list@namesys.com 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