From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752849AbaFFRXA (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 Jun 2014 13:23:00 -0400 Received: from e36.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.154]:37420 "EHLO e36.co.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752829AbaFFRW4 (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 Jun 2014 13:22:56 -0400 Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2014 10:22:51 -0700 From: "Paul E. McKenney" To: David Laight Cc: "'Ken Helias'" , lkml , "dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org" , "netdev@vger.kernel.org" , "devel@driverdev.osuosl.org" , "linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" , "b.a.t.m.a.n@lists.open-mesh.org" , "bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH] list: Fix order of arguments for hlist_add_after(_rcu) Message-ID: <20140606172250.GN4581@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com References: <1402047743-3391-1-git-send-email-kenhelias@firemail.de> <063D6719AE5E284EB5DD2968C1650D6D17258AEA@AcuExch.aculab.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <063D6719AE5E284EB5DD2968C1650D6D17258AEA@AcuExch.aculab.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-TM-AS-MML: disable X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER x-cbid: 14060617-3532-0000-0000-0000024D88C1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jun 06, 2014 at 03:56:52PM +0000, David Laight wrote: > From: Behalf Of Ken Helias > > All other add functions for lists have the new item as first argument and the > > position where it is added as second argument. This was changed for no good > > reason in this function and makes using it unnecessary confusing. > > > > Also the naming of the arguments in hlist_add_after was confusing. It was > > changed to use the same names as hlist_add_after_rcu. > ... > > -static inline void hlist_add_after_rcu(struct hlist_node *prev, > > - struct hlist_node *n) > > +static inline void hlist_add_after_rcu(struct hlist_node *n, > > + struct hlist_node *prev) > > It is rather a shame that the change doesn't generate a compilation > error for old source files. I am also a bit concerned by this. Thanx, Paul