![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
In message <1030945918.939.3143.camel@phantasy> you write: > On Mon, 2002-09-02 at 01:23, Rusty Russell wrote: > > > This week, it spread to SCTP. > > > > "struct list_head" isn't a great name, but having two names for > > everything is yet another bar to reading kernel source. > > I am all for your cleanup here, but two nits: > > Why not rename list_head while at it? I would vote for just "struct > list" ... the name is long, and I like my lines to fit 80 columns. Because renaming breaks things for no good reason. "list_head is ugly" is insufficient cause: it doesn't cause bugs (cf. skb_realloc). You want to clean up some ugliness? Find every list_for_each/list_entry pair and substitute list_for_each_entry(). > Second, if we want to force people to change, we should remove "list_t" > too to prevent new uses creeping in. Plus, like Linus says, it is often > to break stuff and cleanup the mess... I did: see the patch. Really, I don't care whether it's "struct list_head" or "list_t", but both is stupid. And since struct list_head is backwards compatible, that's the winner here. As someone who has been slowly feeding ISO-C declarated initializers into 2.5, I am acutely aware of the cost of widespread change. Hope that clarifies, Rusty. -- Anyone who quotes me in their sig is an idiot. -- Rusty Russell. - 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/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 12:28 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||