On Thu, 2012-09-06 at 18:21 +0200, Sasha Levin wrote: > 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? If 'pos' is no longer used in the macro, I don't see any reason for keeping it around. -- Steve -- 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>