Byungchul Park <byungchul.p...@lge.com> writes: > 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,
Hello Byungchul, > In my use case, I only do adding and traversing on a llist. Can you provide more details about your use case? Best Regards, Huang, Ying >> >> 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
