On 09/06/2012 06:00 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote: >> > I think that that code doesn't make sense. The users of hlist_for_each_* aren't >> > supposed to be changing the loop cursor. > I totally agree. Modifying the 'node' pointer is just asking for issues. > Yes that is error prone, but not due to the double loop. It's due to the > modifying of the node pointer that is used internally by the loop > counter. Don't do that :-) While we're on this subject, I haven't actually seen hlist_for_each_entry() code that even *touches* 'pos'. Will people yell at me loudly if I change the prototype of those macros to be: hlist_for_each_entry(tpos, head, member) (Dropping the 'pos' parameter), and updating anything that calls those macros to drop it as well? Thanks, Sasha -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>