[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <adak5uppqft.fsf@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 21:28:22 -0700
From: Roland Dreier <rdreier@...co.com>
To: Pete Zaitcev <zaitcev@...hat.com>
Cc: "Satyam Sharma" <satyam.sharma@...il.com>,
"Matthias Kaehlcke" <matthias.kaehlcke@...il.com>,
linux-usb-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drivers/block/ub.c: use list_for_each_entry()
> > 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@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists