[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <51AEE07E.6070301@gmx.net>
Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2013 08:53:50 +0200
From: Arne Jansen <sensille@....net>
To: Jörn Engel <joern@...fs.org>
CC: Chris Mason <clmason@...ionio.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
"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
On 05.06.2013 04:09, Jörn Engel wrote:
> On Tue, 4 June 2013 14:44:35 -0400, Jörn Engel wrote:
>>
>> Or while_list_drain?
I'm fine with while_list_drain, although a name starting with list_
like all other list macros would be nice. How about just list_drain?
The next question is where to put it in the header so that anyone
doing list cleanup stumbles upon it. Maybe directly below list_del?
-Arne
>
> Not sure if the silence is approval or lack of interest, but a new set
> of patches is posted. By playing around with the implementation a
> bit, I have actually found a variant that makes the object code
> shrink. Not one variant gave same-size object code. There's compiler
> optimization for you.
>
> Jörn
>
> --
> Money can buy bandwidth, but latency is forever.
> -- John R. Mashey
--
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