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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 07:48:56 -0700 From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> To: J??rn Engel <joern@...fs.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, 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. -- 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