Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Fri, 15 Jun 2001 12:12:02 -0700 (PDT) | | From | Linus Torvalds <> | | Subject | Re: [Final call for testers][PATCH] superblock handling changes (2.4.6-pre3) |
| |
On Fri, 15 Jun 2001, Alexander Viro wrote: > > > + list_add (&s->s_list, super_blocks.prev); > > > > I'd use list_add_tail(&s->s_list, super_blocks); > > Umm... Why?
I have to agree with Matthew - "list_add_tail()" more clearly says what the code is trying to do.
Aside from that, I will bet you a dollar that you'll see that using "list_add_tail()" generating better code. Why? Simply because that way one of the pointers is a constant, instead of being through indirection. Try it and see.
And if order is arbitrary, please just use
list_add(&s->s_list, super_blocks);
because otherwise why use the ".prev" at all?
Linus
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |