On 06/29/2018 05:04 AM, Jeremy Harris wrote: > On 06/28/2018 11:09 PM, David Wysochanski wrote: >> One problem with all of these non-storage location algorithms is that >> it won't give you the precise location of the start of the loop in the >> list (i.e. the one with the corrupted 'prev' list entry. >> >> I am not sure if this is a show stopper but that is fairly important >> information in most instances. > > Um, one list-walker checking the back-pointer against where it > just came from would seem to suffice for that? >
That's much less work than using two walkers with differing step sizes looking for them to ever match within the list but it assumes a doubly linked list for all cases and the knowledge of where the prev pointer is relative to the next pointer. Are we talking about commands (list) that aren't to be used on singly linked (next only) lists. -- David. -- Crash-utility mailing list Crash-utility@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/crash-utility
