Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 05 Jun 2013 08:53:50 +0200 | From | Arne Jansen <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/2] introduce list_for_each_entry_del |
| |
On 05.06.2013 04:09, Jörn Engel wrote: > On Tue, 4 June 2013 14:44:35 -0400, Jörn Engel wrote: >> >> Or while_list_drain?
I'm fine with while_list_drain, although a name starting with list_ like all other list macros would be nice. How about just list_drain? The next question is where to put it in the header so that anyone doing list cleanup stumbles upon it. Maybe directly below list_del?
-Arne
> > Not sure if the silence is approval or lack of interest, but a new set > of patches is posted. By playing around with the implementation a > bit, I have actually found a variant that makes the object code > shrink. Not one variant gave same-size object code. There's compiler > optimization for you. > > Jörn > > -- > Money can buy bandwidth, but latency is forever. > -- John R. Mashey
-- 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/
| |