linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] teach checkpatch.pl about list_for

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20080103122610.GA18255@infradead.org>
Date:	Thu, 3 Jan 2008 12:26:10 +0000
From:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To:	Andy Whitcroft <andyw@...ibm.com>
Cc:	Christer Weinigel <christer@...nigel.se>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] teach checkpatch.pl about list_for_each

On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 11:10:58AM +0000, Andy Whitcroft wrote:
> We have had some stabs at changing this, but no consensus was reached on
> whether it was a "for" or a "function".  My memory is of there being
> slightly more "without a space" tenders than the other and so it has not
> been changed.  This thread also seems so far to have not really
> generated a concensus.  So I would tend to leave things as they are.  
> 
> A third option might be to accept either on *for_each* constructs.
> That might tend to lead to divergance.  Difficult.  However, also see my
> later comments on "style guide".

Pretty much all core code uses list_for_each_entry( so new code should
follow that example.

--
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/