On 10/31/2016 10:21 AM, Halil Pasic wrote: > > > On 10/31/2016 06:10 PM, Jianjun Duan wrote: >>> I think this got overly complicated. Here is a little patch on >>>> top of your stuff which gets rid of 15 lines and IMHO simplifies >>>> things quite a bit. What do you think? >>>> >>>> It is based on/inspired by Dave's proposal with the dummy stuff. >>>> >>>> Did not address the typos though. >> It is unlikely the definition of QTAILQ will change, so hard-coded >> value probably was the most simple. Now that we want to address the >> potential changes, I think my code will deal with future changes better. > > Please elaborate in what way does your version deal better with future > changes? IMHO the version with my patch applied covers all the corners > your original code covers but it is without any doubt more concise and > in my opinion also more straight-forward. I don't use the internals of head and entry structures if there are access macro around. Also I didn't use pointer type cast. I don't think pointer cast is more straightforward.
Thanks, Jianjun > > Halil >
