In message <1030945918.939.3143.camel@phantasy> you write:
> On Mon, 2002-09-02 at 01:23, Rusty Russell wrote:
>
> > This week, it spread to SCTP.
> >
> > "struct list_head" isn't a great name, but having two names for
> > everything is yet another bar to reading kernel source.
>
> I am all for your cleanup here, but two nits:
>
> Why not rename list_head while at it? I would vote for just "struct
> list" ... the name is long, and I like my lines to fit 80 columns.
Because renaming breaks things for no good reason. "list_head is
ugly" is insufficient cause: it doesn't cause bugs (cf. skb_realloc).
You want to clean up some ugliness? Find every
list_for_each/list_entry pair and substitute list_for_each_entry().
> Second, if we want to force people to change, we should remove "list_t"
> too to prevent new uses creeping in. Plus, like Linus says, it is often
> to break stuff and cleanup the mess...
I did: see the patch.
Really, I don't care whether it's "struct list_head" or "list_t", but
both is stupid. And since struct list_head is backwards compatible,
that's the winner here.
As someone who has been slowly feeding ISO-C declarated initializers
into 2.5, I am acutely aware of the cost of widespread change.
Hope that clarifies,
Rusty.
-- Anyone who quotes me in their sig is an idiot. -- Rusty Russell. - 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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Sep 07 2002 - 22:00:15 EST