Also sprach Borislav Deianov:
}
} In article <20000223022355.A816@ganymede.isdn.uiuc.edu> you wrote:
} > +#define list_for_each(pos, head) \
} > + for (pos = (head).next; pos != &(head); pos = pos->next)
}
} On second thought I agree with you - this looks useful. I think it
} should take a struct list_head *head, though, rather than struct
} list_head head, in order to be consistent with the other list
} functions.
}
One thing is that the code I've come across seems to use struct list_head
head instead of *head...But consistency should be key here...
} > +/*
} > static struct ctl_table_header root_table_header =
} > - {root_table, DNODE_SINGLE(&root_table_header)};
} > + { root_table, LIST_HEAD_INIT(root_table_header) };
} > +*/
} > +static LIST_HEAD(root_table_header);
}
} Just delete dead code istead of commenting it out...
}
Yeah. I did that while applying the patch to make sure the
transformations went correctly....
-- || Bill Wendling wendling@ganymede.isdn.uiuc.edu- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Feb 23 2000 - 21:00:33 EST