Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] resource: Use list_head to link sibling resource

[Wei Yang <richard.weiyang-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>]

On Tue, May 08, 2018 at 08:11:23PM +0800, Baoquan He wrote:
>On 05/08/18 at 08:48pm, Wei Yang wrote:
>> 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?
>
>I am not sure either. Since my patches are still under reviewing. And
>you have pasted your patch. It depends on maintainers, mainly Andrew and
>other reviewers who have concerns.

Ok, thanks.

-- 
Wei Yang
Help you, Help me