Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 3 Jun 2013 15:55:55 -0400 | From | Jörn Engel <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/2] introduce list_for_each_entry_del |
| |
On Mon, 3 June 2013 15:36:47 -0400, Jörn Engel wrote: > On Mon, 3 June 2013 13:49:30 -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > > I can't say I like the structure. > > > > A list_pop that removes and entry from the head or returns NULL if the > > list is empty would lead to nice while loops that are obviously > > readable instead. > > Something like this? > > #define list_pop(head) \ > ({ struct list_head *____pos; \ > list_empty(head) ? NULL : (____pos = (head)->next, \ > list_del(____pos), ____pos) \ > }) > > #define list_pop_entry(head, type, member) \ > ({ struct list_head *____pos; \ > list_empty(head) ? NULL : (____pos = (head)->next, \ > list_del(____pos), list_entry(____pos, type, member) \ > }) > > Would be fine with me as well.
Actually, when I compare the two invocations, I prefer the list_for_each_entry_del() variant over list_pop_entry().
while ((ref = list_pop_entry(&prefs, struct __prelim_ref, list))) { list_for_each_entry_del(ref, &prefs, list) {
Christoph?
Jörn
-- "Translations are and will always be problematic. They inflict violence upon two languages." (translation from German) -- 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/
| |