From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: arlie@worldash.org (Arlie Stephens) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 11:45:35 -0700 Subject: Design Patterns in Linux Kernel: Fancy Tricks With Linked Lists In-Reply-To: <20130319135444.55062vj0q2h6ewmc@crashcourse.ca> References: <20130319153423.GA30406@worldash.org> <20130319165209.GB30406@worldash.org> <20130319134424.14082m260s7uv7y8@crashcourse.ca> <20130319135444.55062vj0q2h6ewmc@crashcourse.ca> Message-ID: <20130319184535.GA32427@worldash.org> To: kernelnewbies@lists.kernelnewbies.org List-Id: kernelnewbies.lists.kernelnewbies.org Hi Robert, Thank you very much - for your web pages as well as for your responses in this thread. On Mar 19 2013, Robert P. J. Day wrote: > Oh, crap, I just remembered that even Robert Love's 3rd edition of > "Linux Kernel Development" (aka "LKD3") isn't 100% correct WRT linked > lists. A while back, I started keeping track of typoes/errors/whatever > in LKD3 for the benefit of the eventual LKD4, and I started a page here: > > http://www.crashcourse.ca/wiki/index.php/Updates_to_LKD3 > > Partway down that page, you can see my notes on linked lists: > > http://www.crashcourse.ca/wiki/index.php/Updates_to_LKD3#Linked_lists Beautiful! This page covers everything we were confused about yesterday. And you are right - I read Love's 3rd edition as more ambiguous than wrong, but he does say the "head" node is not a member of the list, and that's more wrong than ambiguous. Morevover, the biggest problem with my first implementation was that I believed him. -- Arlie (Arlie Stephens arlie at worldash.org)