From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Tue, 8 May 2018 20:11:23 +0800 From: Baoquan He To: Wei Yang Cc: 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: <20180508121123.GI30581@MiWiFi-R3L-srv> References: <20180419001848.3041-1-bhe@redhat.com> <20180419001848.3041-2-bhe@redhat.com> <20180426011837.GA79340@WeideMacBook-Pro.local> <20180507011429.GG30581@MiWiFi-R3L-srv> <20180508114845.GA19459@WeideMacBook-Pro.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20180508114845.GA19459@WeideMacBook-Pro.local> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 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.