[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130708043709.GB3438@dastard>
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2013 14:37:09 +1000
From: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
To: Jörn 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 Fri, Jul 05, 2013 at 04:41:00PM -0400, Jörn Engel wrote:
> 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!
Can you add _init variants to this? There are many loops that
actually require list_del_init() rather than list_del()...
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@...morbit.com
--
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