On Wed, 30 May 2007 16:14:01 -0700, Roland Dreier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The negative is the sheer number of helper functions in list.h. Personally, > > I find it difficult to retain a working knowledge of them. Iterators are > > particularly nasty that way. I'm thinking about dropping all of these > > list_for_each_with_murky_argument_requirements_and_odd_side_effects() > > and use plain for(;;), as a courtesy to someone who has to read the > > code years down the road. > > I think I disagree with this reasoning. If I'm reading your code and > I see, say, list_for_each_entry_safe(), I can be pretty confident that > your loop works correctly. If you write your own for loop, then I > have to check that you actually got the linked list walking right. You have to check that I used list_for_each_entry_safe correctly too, which is harder. Are you aware that we had (and probably still have) dozens of cases where the use of list_for_each_entry_safe was buggy? Most of them involved IHV programmers being lured into false sense of security by the _safe suffix and getting their locking wrong. You could not find a better way to blow up your own argument than to mention list_for_each_entry_safe(), which is anything but. Matthias' use of list_for_each_entry() actually IS safe, which is why I am not NAKing it. Andrew has accepted it already. I just think we aren't winning squat here. -- Pete - 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/
