Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Fri, 15 Jun 2001 12:41:08 -0400 (EDT) | | From | Alexander Viro <> | | 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've no problems with either variant, but I really see no > clear win (or loss) in list_add_tail here. If there is some code that
OK, my fault - I shouldn't post before the first cup of coffee. Sorry - I've missed the point here. Yes, list_add_tail() would be OK here.
- 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/
|  |