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]

Message-ID: <20130604144856.GA12302@infradead.org>
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/