Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 15:39:57 -0400 From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Cc: Lawrence Stewart <lstewart@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Adding a FOREACH_CONTINUE() variant to queue(3) Message-ID: <201305201539.57848.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <5180C740.1060104@freebsd.org> References: <518092BF.9070105@freebsd.org> <5180AF55.5070000@freebsd.org> <5180C740.1060104@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wednesday, May 01, 2013 3:41:52 am Lawrence Stewart wrote: > On 05/01/13 15:59, Lawrence Stewart wrote: > > On 05/01/13 15:29, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > >> In message <518092BF.9070105@freebsd.org>, Lawrence Stewart writes: > >>> [reposting from freebsd-arch@ - was probably the wrong list] > >> > >>> #define TAILQ_FOREACH_CONTINUE(var, head, field) \ > >> > >> Obligatory bikeshedding: > >> > >> I find the suffix "_CONTINUE" non-obvious, as there may not have > >> been any previos FOREACH involved. > >> > >> TAILQ_FOREACH_FROM(...) ? > > > > Agreed. Thanks for the input. > > Here's an untested patch for consideration: > > http://people.freebsd.org/~lstewart/patches/misc/queue_foreach_from_10.x.r250136.patch > > I didn't do _SAFE variants as I don't have an immediate use for them. Looks ok to me. I agree with phk@ and prefer the _FROM name. -- John Baldwin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201305201539.57848.jhb>