Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>, J??rn Engel <joern@logfs.org>
From: Chris Mason <clmason@fusionio.com>
In-Reply-To: <20130604144856.GA12302@infradead.org>
CC: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org" <linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org>
References: <1370280485-10047-1-git-send-email-joern@logfs.org>
 <20130603204930.GA28299@infradead.org> <20130603193647.GB10200@logfs.org>
 <20130603195555.GC10200@logfs.org> <20130604144856.GA12302@infradead.org>
Message-ID: <20130604145322.4088.78915@localhost.localdomain>
User-Agent: alot/0.3.4
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] introduce list_for_each_entry_del
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 10:53:22 -0400
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 936
Lines: 24

Quoting Christoph Hellwig (2013-06-04 10:48:56)
> On Mon, Jun 03, 2013 at 03:55:55PM -0400, J??rn Engel wrote:
> > 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?
> 
> I really don't like something that looks like an iterator (*for_each*)
> to modify a list.  Maybe it's just me, so I'd love to hear others chime
> in.

Have to agree with Christoph.  I just couldn't put my finger on why I
didn't like it until I saw the list_pop_entry suggestion.

-chris

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/