From owner-freebsd-current Fri Apr 11 11:14:30 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id LAA08578 for current-outgoing; Fri, 11 Apr 1997 11:14:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from alpo.whistle.com (alpo.whistle.com [207.76.204.38]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA08572 for ; Fri, 11 Apr 1997 11:14:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from current1.whistle.com (current1.whistle.com [207.76.205.22]) by alpo.whistle.com (8.8.5/8.8.4) with SMTP id LAA01364; Fri, 11 Apr 1997 11:11:38 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <334E7ED4.794BDF32@whistle.com> Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 11:11:32 -0700 From: Julian Elischer Organization: Whistle Communications X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (X11; I; FreeBSD 2.2-CURRENT i386) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Garrett Wollman CC: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: WHY? ...non-use of TAILQ macros... References: <199704110021.UAA05660@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> <199704110039.RAA10331@phaeton.artisoft.com> <199704110114.VAA05848@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-current@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Garrett Wollman wrote: > > < 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.