From owner-freebsd-current  Thu Apr 10 19:12:24 1997
Return-Path: <owner-current>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id TAA20030
          for current-outgoing; Thu, 10 Apr 1997 19:12:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from root.com (implode.root.com [198.145.90.17])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id TAA20008
          for <current@FreeBSD.ORG>; Thu, 10 Apr 1997 19:12:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by root.com (8.8.5/8.6.5) with SMTP id TAA01113; Thu, 10 Apr 1997 19:11:26 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <199704110211.TAA01113@root.com>
X-Authentication-Warning: implode.root.com: localhost [127.0.0.1] didn't use HELO protocol
To: Garrett Wollman <wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu>
cc: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org>, current@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: WHY? ...non-use of TAILQ macros... 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 10 Apr 1997 21:14:06 EDT."
             <199704110114.VAA05848@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> 
From: David Greenman <dg@root.com>
Reply-To: dg@root.com
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 19:11:26 -0700
Sender: owner-current@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

><<On Thu, 10 Apr 1997 17:39:39 -0700 (MST), Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> said:
>
>>> > kern_lockf.c:				while (ltmp = overlap->lf_blkhd.tqh_first) {
>
>>> 2.  Because they are unnecessary.
>
>> Well, that begs the question of qhy they are being used in declarations
>> and elsewhere, then, doesn't it?
>
>I never said that the declaration macros were unnecessary.  I said
>that macros like TAILQ_FIRST are unnecessary.  Some people disagree
>(notably David G. and Justin).

   Actually it was Poul-Henning who added those and I don't recall
agreeing that I liked it. In fact, I recall thinking that it was
completely unnecessary, but I don't think I made any comment at the
time.

-DG

David Greenman
Core-team/Principal Architect, The FreeBSD Project