Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 11:11:32 -0700 From: Julian Elischer <julian@whistle.com> To: Garrett Wollman <wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: WHY? ...non-use of TAILQ macros... Message-ID: <334E7ED4.794BDF32@whistle.com> References: <199704110021.UAA05660@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> <199704110039.RAA10331@phaeton.artisoft.com> <199704110114.VAA05848@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Garrett Wollman wrote:
>
> <<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).
and me
I think that if you are using a MACRO set for the definition, the n you
should have a macro to
use it.. so that debugging and locks etc, can
be changed without changing the code.. otherwise the
macros are not really being used for what they are good for.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?334E7ED4.794BDF32>