> > 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/
