Joe Perches wrote:
Now that most of the sizeof(array)/sizeof(array[0])
conversions have been done (there are about 800 done
and about another 130 left), perhaps it could be
useful to change the code to use a define similar
to the list_for_each
#define list_for_each(pos, head) \
for (pos = (head)->next; prefetch(pos->next), pos != (head); \
pos = pos->next)
perhaps
#define array_for_each(index, array) \
for ((index) = 0; (index) < ARRAY_SIZE((array)); (index)++)
I like the idea, my only concern would be potential confusion. That is,
the list_for_each macro sets pos to each list_head in turn where
array_for_each just sets the index /in to/ the array. While I think the
way you have is nicer, for compatibility between the two styles maybe
something more like
#define array_for_each(element, array) \
for (int __idx = 0; __idx < ARRAY_SIZE((array)); \
__idx++, (element) = &(array[__idx]))
would help. Of course the other option is to name array_for_each
something different to avoid comparisons with list_for_each.
--Ben.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
