[lkml]   [2001]   [Jun]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [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?


    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 12:55    [W:0.022 / U:2.296 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site