Re: List of things requested by lkml for reiser4 inclusion (to review)

[Hans Reiser <reiser@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