From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Mar 15 17:07:45 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: arch@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E1A916A40B for ; Thu, 15 Mar 2007 17:07:45 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from julian@elischer.org) Received: from outB.internet-mail-service.net (outB.internet-mail-service.net [216.240.47.225]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC57F13C4BD for ; Thu, 15 Mar 2007 17:07:44 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from julian@elischer.org) Received: from mx0.idiom.com (HELO idiom.com) (216.240.32.160) by out.internet-mail-service.net (qpsmtpd/0.32) with ESMTP; Thu, 15 Mar 2007 09:40:29 -0700 Received: from [192.168.2.5] (home.elischer.org [216.240.48.38]) by idiom.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43CE5125B31; Thu, 15 Mar 2007 10:07:43 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <45F97D5F.2010709@elischer.org> Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 10:07:43 -0700 From: Julian Elischer User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (Macintosh/20070221) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Yar Tikhiy References: <39968.1173776514@critter.freebsd.dk> <40441.1173778685@critter.freebsd.dk> <20070315134300.GE28354@comp.chem.msu.su> In-Reply-To: <20070315134300.GE28354@comp.chem.msu.su> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: arch@freebsd.org, Poul-Henning Kamp Subject: Re: bikeshed proposal X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 17:07:45 -0000 Yar Tikhiy wrote: > On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 09:38:05AM +0000, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: >> In message <39968.1173776514@critter.freebsd.dk>, Poul-Henning Kamp writes: >>> It has always bothered me that some of the TAILQ macros need to >>> know the struct name of the header type. > > Yeah, can present a challenge in understanding an > implementation of basic data structures and related algos. :-) > You thought that tqe_prev points to the whole entry structure when > making the patch, didn't you? > > Personally, I cannot explain to myself why in the double-linked > structs the prev member points to the next member in the previous > list element and not to the previous list element itself. Could > anybody with CS education explain merits of the current approach? > I can only see that now we have to go to the element before the > previous one for a pointer to the latter. I'm not going to dispute > the current way of things, just curious. kirk can tell you that I believe.. >