[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:0.041 / U:0.768 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site