lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [May]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] drivers/block/ub.c: use list_for_each_entry()
    From
    Date
     > > If I just see
    > >
    > > for (pos = list_entry((head)->next, typeof(*pos), member),
    > > n = list_entry(pos->member.next, typeof(*pos), member);
    > > &pos->member != (head);
    > > pos = n, n = list_entry(n->member.next, typeof(*n), member))
    > >
    > > then what am I to think?
    >
    > You won't catch me writing this kind of crap, so the question is moot.
    > Seriously, a comma operator? Admit it, you just expanded a marcro from
    > list.h by hand. Real people cannot write like that.

    Of course I admit it, that is a copy of the definition of list_for_each_safe()
    (with just the '/'s removed). But the point is, if you are writing
    something that iterates through a list and deletes entries, you
    basically have to write equivalent code.

    Just think about how many silly bugs you've written in your life when
    (re)implementing linked lists. By using <linux/list.h>, you avoid all
    that, and as a code reviewer that makes my life easier. It's the same
    theory as <linux/kref.h> -- the code is rather trivial (although as
    "git log lib/kref.c" shows, not entirely trivial). But if I see
    someone using struct kref, all I have to check is whether she used it
    correctly. I don't have to worry about whether she screwed up the
    implementation.

    - R.
    -
    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: 2007-05-31 06:31    [W:0.023 / U:29.600 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site