From owner-freebsd-current  Mon Jan  1  2:25:19 2001
From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon Jan  1 02:25:17 2001
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (flutter.freebsd.dk [212.242.40.147])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 876A137B400; Mon,  1 Jan 2001 02:25:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from critter (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by critter.freebsd.dk (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f01AP9q36404;
	Mon, 1 Jan 2001 11:25:09 +0100 (CET)
	(envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk)
To: Matt Dillon <dillon@earth.backplane.com>
Cc: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.ORG>, current@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: Current hangs... 
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 31 Dec 2000 18:04:50 PST."
             <200101010204.f0124oW47215@earth.backplane.com> 
Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2001 11:25:08 +0100
Message-ID: <36402.978344708@critter>
From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk>
Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

In message <200101010204.f0124oW47215@earth.backplane.com>, Matt Dillon writes:
>:
>:Why not this:
>:
>:s = splbio();
>:TAILQ_FOREACH(bp, &vp->v_dirtyblkhd, b_vnbufs) {
>
>    First rule when making simple bug fixes by copying working code from one
>    source file to another is:  Dont try to optimize the code on the
>    fly.
>
>    Personally speaking, I don't find the FOREACH macros any more readable
>    vs an explicit for loop.  They hide too much... like for example the
>    fact that you are dependant on the current pointer remaining valid to
>    get the next pointer in the loop.


Is that any different from

	for (i = 0; i < N; i++) {
		bla;
	}
	
?
	
--
Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk@FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message