On Thu, 2012-09-06 at 18:21 +0200, Sasha Levin wrote: > On 09/06/2012 06:00 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote: > >> > I think that that code doesn't make sense. The users of hlist_for_each_* > >> > aren't > >> > supposed to be changing the loop cursor. > > I totally agree. Modifying the 'node' pointer is just asking for issues. > > Yes that is error prone, but not due to the double loop. It's due to the > > modifying of the node pointer that is used internally by the loop > > counter. Don't do that :-) > > While we're on this subject, I haven't actually seen hlist_for_each_entry() > code > that even *touches* 'pos'. > > Will people yell at me loudly if I change the prototype of those macros to be: > > hlist_for_each_entry(tpos, head, member) > > (Dropping the 'pos' parameter), and updating anything that calls those macros > to > drop it as well?
If 'pos' is no longer used in the macro, I don't see any reason for keeping it around. -- Steve -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
