> > If I just see
> >
> > for (pos = list_entry((head)->next, typeof(*pos), member),
> > n = list_entry(pos->member.next, typeof(*pos), member);
> > &pos->member != (head);
> > pos = n, n = list_entry(n->member.next, typeof(*n), member))
> >
> > then what am I to think?
>
> You won't catch me writing this kind of crap, so the question is moot.
> Seriously, a comma operator? Admit it, you just expanded a marcro from
> list.h by hand. Real people cannot write like that.
Of course I admit it, that is a copy of the definition of list_for_each_safe()
(with just the '/'s removed). But the point is, if you are writing
something that iterates through a list and deletes entries, you
basically have to write equivalent code.
Just think about how many silly bugs you've written in your life when
(re)implementing linked lists. By using <linux/list.h>, you avoid all
that, and as a code reviewer that makes my life easier. It's the same
theory as <linux/kref.h> -- the code is rather trivial (although as
"git log lib/kref.c" shows, not entirely trivial). But if I see
someone using struct kref, all I have to check is whether she used it
correctly. I don't have to worry about whether she screwed up the
implementation.
- R.
-
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]
