Re: [PATCH 0/2] introduce list_for_each_entry_del

[JÃrn Engel]

On Mon, 3 June 2013 15:36:47 -0400, JÃrn Engel wrote:
> On Mon, 3 June 2013 13:49:30 -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > 
> > I can't say I like the structure.
> > 
> > A list_pop that removes and entry from the head or returns NULL if the
> > list is empty would lead to nice while loops that are obviously
> > readable instead.
> 
> Something like this?
> 
> #define list_pop(head) \
>         ({ struct list_head *____pos; \
>            list_empty(head) ? NULL : (____pos = (head)->next, \
>                    list_del(____pos), ____pos) \
>         })
> 
> #define list_pop_entry(head, type, member) \
>         ({ struct list_head *____pos; \
>            list_empty(head) ? NULL : (____pos = (head)->next, \
>                    list_del(____pos), list_entry(____pos, type, member) \
>         })
> 
> Would be fine with me as well.

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?

JÃrn

--
"Translations are and will always be problematic. They inflict violence
upon two languages." (translation from German)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/