Re: [PATCH v3 01/17] hashtable: introduce a small and naivehashtable

[Steven Rostedt]

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 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/