On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 09:37:50AM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote: > Byungchul Park <byungchul.p...@lge.com> writes: > > > Hello folks, > > > > I'm careful in saying.. and curious about.. > > > > In restrictive cases like only addtions happen but never deletion, can't > > we safely traverse a llist? I believe llist can be more useful if we can > > release the restriction. Can't we? > > > > If yes, we may add another function traversing starting from a head. Or > > just use existing funtion with head->first. > > > > Thank a lot for your answers in advance :) > > What's the use case? I don't know how it is useful that items are never > deleted from the llist. > > Some other locks could be used to provide mutual exclusive between > > - llist add, llist traverse
Hello Huang, In my use case, I only do adding and traversing on a llist. > > and > > - llist delete Of course, I will use a lock when deletion is needed. So.. in the case only adding into and traversing a llist is needed, can't we safely traverse a llist in the way I thought? Or am I missing something? Thank you. > Is this your use case? > > Best Regards, > Huang, Ying
