On Fri, Apr 03, 2015 at 03:55:43PM -0700, Jarno Rajahalme wrote:
> Makes popping each member of the list a bit easier.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jarno Rajahalme <jrajaha...@nicira.com>
> diff --git a/lib/list.h b/lib/list.h
> index b40bbef..bca5d5c 100644
> --- a/lib/list.h
> +++ b/lib/list.h
> @@ -73,6 +73,12 @@ static inline bool list_is_short(const struct ovs_list *);
> ? INIT_CONTAINER(NEXT, (ITER)->MEMBER.next, MEMBER), 1 \
> : 0); \
> (ITER) = (NEXT))
> +#define LIST_FOR_EACH_POP(ITER, MEMBER, LIST) \
> + for (struct ovs_list *next__ = (LIST)->next; \
> + (next__ != (LIST) \
> + ? (INIT_CONTAINER(ITER, next__, MEMBER), \
> + (next__ = list_remove(next__)), 1) \
> + : 0);)
>
An implementation like this is also possible, I think (I didn't test
it):
while (!list_is_empty(LIST)
&& (INIT_CONTAINER(ITER, (LIST)->next, MEMBER),
list_remove(&(ITER)->MEMBER),
1))
The tradeoffs are a little different. With your implementation, the
code in the loop can insert new elements in the list before the current
iteration point, and those elements won't get visited or deleted. With
mine, any elements inserted anywhere will get visited and deleted (and
there's a little more safety in that there's no next__ that the loop
could destroy by mistake). I don't think that either behavior is
inherently superior, so I'm just presenting this for your thoughts.
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
dev@openvswitch.org
http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
