Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
On Tue, 2007-02-13 at 18:42 +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
Joe Perches wrote:
[...]
perhaps:
#define array_for_each(element, array) \
for ((element) = (array); \
(element) < ((array) + ARRAY_SIZE((array))); \
(element)++)
If you're going for consistency, then shouldn't this be
array_for_each_entry()?
That depends on the decision between consistency to array_for_each_index
or consistency to list_for_each.
I don't follow.
list_for_each gives you a list_head.
list_for_each_entry gives you a pointer to an entry in the list, which
is equivalent to the above loop which gives a pointer to an entry in the
array. Accordingly, it should be called array_for_each_entry. What sort
of logic leads to another conclusion?
array_for_each_index gives an index into the array.
I offer no opinion on the merit of such macros, just their names.
--
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
-
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]
