Date: Sun, 6 May 2007 13:56:50 +0200 From: Hans Petter Selasky <hselasky@c2i.net> To: Mark Murray <mark@grondar.org> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Missing LIST_PREV() ? Message-ID: <200705061356.50911.hselasky@c2i.net> In-Reply-To: <200705061139.l46BdssN017108@greatest.grondar.org> References: <200705061139.l46BdssN017108@greatest.grondar.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sunday 06 May 2007 13:39, Mark Murray wrote:
> Hans Petter Selasky writes:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Why should LISTs only be forward traversable? The following piece of
> > code make lists backward traversable:
>
> No objection to the concept.
>
> But...
>
> > /sys/sys/queue.h:
> >
> > +#define LIST_PREV(head,elm,field) \
> > + (((elm) == LIST_FIRST(head)) ? ((__typeof(elm))0) : \
> > + ((__typeof(elm))(((uint8_t *)((elm)->field.le_prev)) - \
> > + ((uint8_t *)&LIST_NEXT((__typeof(elm))0,field)))))
>
> Please don't use typeof; it is a GCCism. Do you really mean NULL?
Thanks for pointing that out.
Then you will have to pass an additional argument, namely the "type":
#define LIST_PREV(head,elm,field,type) \
(((elm) == LIST_FIRST(head)) ? ((struct type *)0) : \
((struct type *)(((uint8_t *)((elm)->field.le_prev)) - \
((uint8_t *)&LIST_NEXT((struct type *)0,field)))))
How about the order of the arguments?
Is this better?
If this is accepted I will commit it to my FreeBSD P4 USB project first. Then
someone else can commit it to HEAD.
--HPS
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200705061356.50911.hselasky>