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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <20130604145322.4088.78915@localhost.localdomain>
Date:	Tue, 4 Jun 2013 10:53:22 -0400
From:	Chris Mason <clmason@...ionio.com>
To:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	J??rn Engel <joern@...fs.org>
CC:	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org" <linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] introduce list_for_each_entry_del

Quoting Christoph Hellwig (2013-06-04 10:48:56)
> 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.

Have to agree with Christoph.  I just couldn't put my finger on why I
didn't like it until I saw the list_pop_entry suggestion.

-chris

--
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/