From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: NeilBrown Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/18] rhashtable: remove rhashtable_walk_peek() Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2018 10:30:55 +1000 Message-ID: <87y3fvpf40.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name> References: <152782754287.30340.4395718227884933670.stgit@noble> <152782824964.30340.6329146982899668633.stgit@noble> <20180602154851.pfy4wryezuhxp76v@gondor.apana.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Cc: Thomas Graf , netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Tom Herbert To: Herbert Xu Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20180602154851.pfy4wryezuhxp76v@gondor.apana.org.au> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, Jun 02 2018, Herbert Xu wrote: > On Fri, Jun 01, 2018 at 02:44:09PM +1000, NeilBrown wrote: >> This function has a somewhat confused behavior that is not properly >> described by the documentation. >> Sometimes is returns the previous object, sometimes it returns the >> next one. >> Sometimes it changes the iterator, sometimes it doesn't. >>=20 >> This function is not currently used and is not worth keeping, so >> remove it. >>=20 >> A future patch will introduce a new function with a >> simpler interface which can meet the same need that >> this was added for. >>=20 >> Signed-off-by: NeilBrown > > Please keep Tom Herbert in the loop. IIRC he had an issue with > this patch. Yes you are right - sorry for forgetting to add Tom. My understanding of where this issue stands is that Tom raised issue and asked for clarification, I replied, nothing further happened. It summary, my position is that: =2D most users of my new rhashtable_walk_prev() will use it like rhasthable_talk_prev() ?: rhashtable_walk_next() which is close to what rhashtable_walk_peek() does =2D I know of no use-case that could not be solved if we only had the combined operation =2D BUT it is hard to document the combined operation, as it really does two things. If it is hard to document, then it might be hard to understand. So provide the most understandable/maintainable solution, I think we should provide rhashtable_walk_prev() as a separate interface. Thanks, NeilBronw --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEEG8Yp69OQ2HB7X0l6Oeye3VZigbkFAlsUiD8ACgkQOeye3VZi gbkffBAAlSQ2AhyyzxieA7FU8JyJKigEVXGXQpyCiyw0MQDhORq3h6ee59N0/28f bZ3m07NlDO4TsII2CElhdQ2nwR51QCy+id8gnV2w2wr1c//9ksiUbCY44o7stdiz u3ktzUNE/qEwD0qthP3qYMI480qFP22rdV8Oeo3XkV9kpl2C6uD3iu/81ntqxcJ3 XIHGwoTZTXlEUro93nitLfNc8pg7VJZSv4MJFLvFGwGP8r0WCXA1RCGg+wAGUDPN 6f6ir7NMio/2CplRtPL6ro1PSeggK9+DmKPdsgwIblFqtaZCvJotEwyU1FUODQOg 5HNQhIjn6ggLEWggYXEs9N0JEdCwq4ZyzDZI2D3iWmHVj29XReUQogLfGHFTbIGG OBY1WbMPbo5QdReH/8EcPC5ufn+xjXxiQFQouCfZi7Fwzak9VPNir+BQIsi0ZDej BbaFimVdgNDX2AIV5DsQbjwcU9eQ22fTyuAOOm3UPpFk3ftpqma9RDhTcaMpoyuN ZADrQWFBkoQzjtfvUmil3JEQ6KXK1ocB3MXBste+L3WLt4BWMLDctR73FXxbgPtB D49Wdu5mxAbDXzxagLfsb7jjPVvo71ioZP5WDEPJKM/EnJWhcd/F1bka1SpToeJr 4TkH4e9tOm9KvHETXKVrKw94beD0uN0pJL8pgkeXsLabgdQhjAQ= =6adA -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--