Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 4 Jun 2013 14:44:35 -0400 | From | Jörn Engel <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/2] introduce list_for_each_entry_del |
| |
On Tue, 4 June 2013 22:09:13 +0200, Arne Jansen wrote: > On 06/04/13 16:53, Chris Mason wrote: > > Quoting Christoph Hellwig (2013-06-04 10:48:56) > >> On Mon, Jun 03, 2013 at 03:55:55PM -0400, J??rn Engel wrote: > >>> Actually, when I compare the two invocations, I prefer the > >>> list_for_each_entry_del() variant over list_pop_entry(). > >>> > >>> while ((ref = list_pop_entry(&prefs, struct __prelim_ref, list))) { > >>> list_for_each_entry_del(ref, &prefs, list) { > >>> > >>> Christoph? > >> > >> I really don't like something that looks like an iterator (*for_each*) > >> to modify a list. Maybe it's just me, so I'd love to hear others chime > >> in. > > > > Have to agree with Christoph. I just couldn't put my finger on why I > > didn't like it until I saw the list_pop_entry suggestion. > > list_pop_each_entry?
Or while_list_drain?
I agree the *for_each* cover didn't exactly match the content. But if we find a better name and you are not opposed to the concept, ...
Jörn
-- tglx1 thinks that joern should get a (TM) for "Thinking Is Hard" -- Thomas Gleixner -- 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/
| |