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: <20130705204100.GA15943@logfs.org>
Date:	Fri, 5 Jul 2013 16:41:00 -0400
From:	Jörn Engel <joern@...fs.org>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	Chris Mason <chris.mason@...ionio.com>, linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] introduce list_for_each_entry_del

On Mon, 3 June 2013 13:28:03 -0400, Joern Engel wrote:
> 
> A purely janitorial patchset.  A fairly common pattern is to take a
> list, remove every object from it and do something with this object -
> usually kfree() some variant.  A stupid grep identified roughly 300
> instances, with many more hidden behind more complicated patterns to
> achieve the same end results.

Next version of the same patchset.  Object size is shrinking now, at
least for the one compiler I tested.  And a few kernel hackers met on
a frozen lake in hell with pigs flying overhead and could actually
agree on a name.  While I am sure almost every reader will still
disagree and have one or two better suggestions, I would like to use
this historical moment.

list_del_each and list_del_each_entry is shall be!

Jörn

--
It's just what we asked for, but not what we want!
-- anonymous
--
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/