Hello, Historically, Ganesha has used glist for double linked list. The ntirpc sub-module uses TAILQ. Sometime in the past, a TAILQ or two made their way into Ganesha. Now we have some new contributions that would like to introduce a number of TAILQ. From my perspective, having two different list implementations is not ideal for code maintainability as folks have to remember the subtle differences between the two kinds of lists. One question is do we allow the crack of one or two TAILQ to open floodgates, or do we hold the line and ask new contributions use glist. The second question, if we do allow more TAILQ is do we then convert all the glist to TAILQ. Considering we have some other big code hits coming (binary logging and code format changes) that will make backports a pain, it would be ideal to convert glist to TAILQ the same release rather that possibly having the next release also have a significant change that makes backports a pain. Of course, if we do this conversion, who does it? If ntirpc wasn’t already using TAILQ, my inclination would be to hold the line and stick with glist (and maybe go change the one or two TAILQ to glist). Thanks for your thoughts, Frank Filz _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.nfs-ganesha.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)lists.nfs-ganesha.org