[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2013 22:49:22 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To: Jörn Engel <joern@...fs.org>
Cc: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Chris Mason <chris.mason@...ionio.com>,
linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] list: add list_for_each_entry_del
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 9:12 PM, Jörn Engel <joern@...fs.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 6 June 2013 22:32:55 +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 8:28 PM, Joern Engel <joern@...fs.org> wrote:
>> > I have seen a lot of boilerplate code that either follows the pattern of
>> > while (!list_empty(head)) {
>> > pos = list_entry(head->next, struct foo, list);
>> > list_del(pos->list);
>> > ...
>> > }
>> > or some variant thereof.
>>
>> What the problem to use list_for_each_safe()?
>
> The loop may terminate with elements left on the list. There is more,
> but I would consider this the main problem.
I didn't quite get what you mean.
list_for_each_safe() and list_for_each_entry_safe() traverse across
list. User actually decides when the proper time to remove an element
from the list.
I'm sorry, I didn't see any advantages from list_for_each_del() (or
entry variant).
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
--
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