Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 17:39:39 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> To: wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu (Garrett Wollman) Cc: terry@lambert.org, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: WHY? ...non-use of TAILQ macros... Message-ID: <199704110039.RAA10331@phaeton.artisoft.com> In-Reply-To: <199704110021.UAA05660@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> from "Garrett Wollman" at Apr 10, 97 08:21:58 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > 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.
Well, that begs the question of qhy they are being used in declarations
and elsewhere, then, doesn't it?
> > #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.
Well, *despite* the fact that there is still no style man page on
freefall...
If the tailq's are a FreeBSD invention, they should either be universally
applied, or not applied at all. Style is quite binary about this kind
of thing. And it's not like there is a CSRG any more.
I was interested in macro versions to allow conditional compilation
of locking code for mutex locking queue reference and modification
(the reasoning should be obvious).
Regards,
Terry Lambert
terry@lambert.org
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199704110039.RAA10331>