Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 11 Oct 2005 09:55:52 -0500 | From | David Teigland <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 03/16] GFS: core fs |
| |
On Tue, Oct 11, 2005 at 02:15:25PM +0200, Jan Hudec wrote: > On Mon, Oct 10, 2005 at 23:39:28 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > > + for (head = &ai->ai_ail1_list, tmp = head->prev, prev = tmp->prev; > > > + tmp != head; > > > + tmp = prev, prev = tmp->prev) { > > > >
> > > + for (head = &ai->ai_ail1_list, tmp = head->prev, prev = tmp->prev; > > > + tmp != head; > > > + tmp = prev, prev = tmp->prev) { > > > > > > Can you get less creative in the for loops? [There are more examples > > at other patches, for (i=something; i--; ) was "nicest" example]. > > The later two are good examples of where list_for_each_safe is > appropriate.
There are multiple places like this that need either a list_for_each_entry_reverse_safe or list_for_each_prev_safe, neither of which exist. I'll send a patch to add one.
I've just converted to a macro in ail2_empty() -- I'm not sure why I'd left it out in that spot, maybe to be consistent with ail1_empty above.
Thanks, Dave
- 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/
| |