Re: [PATCH 0/2] introduce list_for_each_entry_del

[JÃrn Engel]

On Tue, 4 June 2013 22:09:13 +0200, Arne Jansen wrote:
> On 06/04/13 16:53, Chris Mason wrote:
> > Quoting Christoph Hellwig (2013-06-04 10:48:56)
> >> On Mon, Jun 03, 2013 at 03:55:55PM -0400, J??rn Engel wrote:
> >>> Actually, when I compare the two invocations, I prefer the
> >>> list_for_each_entry_del() variant over list_pop_entry().
> >>>
> >>>         while ((ref = list_pop_entry(&prefs, struct __prelim_ref, list))) {
> >>>         list_for_each_entry_del(ref, &prefs, list) {
> >>>
> >>> Christoph?
> >>
> >> I really don't like something that looks like an iterator (*for_each*)
> >> to modify a list.  Maybe it's just me, so I'd love to hear others chime
> >> in.
> > 
> > Have to agree with Christoph.  I just couldn't put my finger on why I
> > didn't like it until I saw the list_pop_entry suggestion.
> 
> list_pop_each_entry?

Or while_list_drain?

I agree the *for_each* cover didn't exactly match the content.  But if
we find a better name and you are not opposed to the concept, ...

JÃrn

--
tglx1 thinks that joern should get a (TM) for "Thinking Is Hard"
-- Thomas Gleixner
--
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/