Messages in this thread | | | From | Linus Torvalds <> | Date | Wed, 11 Apr 2012 21:12:19 -0700 | Subject | Re: hlist_for_each_entry && pos (Was: task_work_queue) |
| |
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 9:00 PM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> wrote: > > This reminds me. > > hlist_for_each_entry_*() do not need "pos", it can be > > #define hlist_for_each_entry(pos, head, member) \ > for (pos = (void*)(head)->first; \ > pos && ({ pos = hlist_entry((void*)pos, typeof(*pos), member); 1; }); \ > pos = (void*)(pos)->member.next)
Ugh. I'm not sure that is any better, with the extra casts to hide the fact that you use the wrong type pointers for it.
Are there any code generation improvements?
Because quite frankly, if there aren't, I think the code churn just isn't worth it - especially with how ugly the macro is.
This is one of those things where the C99 features would actually be nice: one of the few features from C++ that I actually liked is the ability to declare the induction variable. So
#define hlist_for_each_entry(pos, head, member) \ for (void *__pos = (head)->first; \ __pos && ({ pos = hlist_entry(__pos, typeof(*pos), member); 1; }); \ __pos = __pos->next)
would actually be prettier. That said, "pretty macro" isn't very high on the list of things to worry about. Not nearly as high as the pain changing the interface would cause for things that *should* be trivial (like backporting patches etc).
So I'd really want to see some more tangible advantage.
Linus -- 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/
| |