Re: [PATCH] hlist_for_each_safe cleanup

[Herbert Xu]

Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 23:22:23 +0200
>
>> What's wrong with using the comma operator instead of non-standard
>> statement expressions?
> 
> It was more a case of consistency and avoiding the n = NULL assignment when pos
> is NULL.  
> 
> Look at hlist_for_each_entry_safe
> 
> #define hlist_for_each_entry_safe(tpos, pos, n, head, member)            \
>        for (pos = (head)->first;                                        \
>             pos && ({ n = pos->next; 1; }) &&                           \
>                ({ tpos = hlist_entry(pos, typeof(*tpos), member); 1;}); \
>             pos = n)
> 
> What's your problem with the gcc extensions, the kernel uses them all over the place,
> planning on starting a conversion?

Yes but a comma operator will achieve exactly the same thing and is
more concise:

pos && (n = pos->next, 1) &&

You could also write

pos && ((n = pos->next) || 1) &&

Cheers,
-- 
Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/