linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2] introduce list_for_each_entry

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:	Mon, 3 Jun 2013 15:36:47 -0400
From:	Jörn Engel <joern@...fs.org>
To:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Chris Mason <chris.mason@...ionio.com>,
	linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] introduce list_for_each_entry_del

On Mon, 3 June 2013 13:49:30 -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> 
> I can't say I like the structure.
> 
> A list_pop that removes and entry from the head or returns NULL if the
> list is empty would lead to nice while loops that are obviously
> readable instead.

Something like this?

#define list_pop(head) \
        ({ struct list_head *____pos; \
           list_empty(head) ? NULL : (____pos = (head)->next, \
                   list_del(____pos), ____pos) \
        })

#define list_pop_entry(head, type, member) \
        ({ struct list_head *____pos; \
           list_empty(head) ? NULL : (____pos = (head)->next, \
                   list_del(____pos), list_entry(____pos, type, member) \
        })

Would be fine with me as well.

Jörn

--
Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, but
not tried it.
-- Donald Knuth
--
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/