On Wednesday, May 01, 2013 3:41:52 am Lawrence Stewart wrote: > On 05/01/13 15:59, Lawrence Stewart wrote: > > On 05/01/13 15:29, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > >> In message <518092bf.9070...@freebsd.org>, Lawrence Stewart writes: > >>> [reposting from freebsd-arch@ - was probably the wrong list] > >> > >>> #define TAILQ_FOREACH_CONTINUE(var, head, field) \ > >> > >> Obligatory bikeshedding: > >> > >> I find the suffix "_CONTINUE" non-obvious, as there may not have > >> been any previos FOREACH involved. > >> > >> TAILQ_FOREACH_FROM(...) ? > > > > Agreed. Thanks for the input. > > Here's an untested patch for consideration: > > http://people.freebsd.org/~lstewart/patches/misc/queue_foreach_from_10.x.r250136.patch > > I didn't do _SAFE variants as I don't have an immediate use for them.
Looks ok to me. I agree with phk@ and prefer the _FROM name. -- John Baldwin _______________________________________________ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
