From owner-freebsd-current  Thu Apr 10 17:22:49 1997
Return-Path: <owner-current>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id RAA13392
          for current-outgoing; Thu, 10 Apr 1997 17:22:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu (khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu [18.24.4.193])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA13378
          for <current@FreeBSD.ORG>; Thu, 10 Apr 1997 17:22:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from wollman@localhost)
	by khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id UAA05660;
	Thu, 10 Apr 1997 20:21:58 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 20:21:58 -0400 (EDT)
From: Garrett Wollman <wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu>
Message-Id: <199704110021.UAA05660@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu>
To: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org>
Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: WHY? ...non-use of TAILQ macros...
In-Reply-To: <199704102248.PAA10021@phaeton.artisoft.com>
References: <199704102248.PAA10021@phaeton.artisoft.com>
Sender: owner-current@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

<<On Thu, 10 Apr 1997 15:48:44 -0700 (MST), Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> said:

> I'm wondering why the following aren't written using the macros (macro
> versions are shown one line below):

> kern_lockf.c:				while (ltmp = overlap->lf_blkhd.tqh_first) {

1.  Because they are a FreeBSD (actually Justin Gibbs) invention.
Obviously, original Berkeley code will not use a macro that Berkeley
didn't have.

2.  Because they are unnecessary.

> #define	TAILQ_ENUM(elm,head,field)	\
> 	for( elm = (head)->tqh_first; elm != NULL; elm = (elm)->field.tqe_next)

Go read style(9) and then say that with a straight face.

-GAWollman

--
Garrett A. Wollman   | O Siem / We are all family / O Siem / We're all the same
wollman@lcs.mit.edu  | O Siem / The fires of freedom 
Opinions not those of| Dance in the burning flame
MIT, LCS, CRS, or NSA|                     - Susan Aglukark and Chad Irschick