Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2002 10:33:24 -0700 (PDT) From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> To: Daniel Eischen <eischen@pcnet1.pcnet.com> Cc: Neal Fachan <neal@isilon.com>, Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com>, Garrett Wollman <wollman@lcs.mit.edu>, Jonathan Lemon <jlemon@flugsvamp.com>, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: additional queue macro Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0207041030070.6975-100000@InterJet.elischer.org> In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10207041302130.10479-100000@pcnet1.pcnet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
there are two proposals floatingat the moment.. 1/ I added debugging stuff to TAILQ to help find bad usages in KSE. Qusetion/proposal: Should I extend this to other types and add it to the file (or not delete what is there now) 2/ We could add a new macro/method that is slightly less efficient than the current FOREACH macros, but allows element removal. Exisiting methods would no change. On Thu, 4 Jul 2002, Daniel Eischen wrote: > On Thu, 4 Jul 2002, Julian Elischer wrote: > > that was teh plan... we're just discussing the name.. > > TAILQ_FOREACH_SAFE ? > > Oh, I thought the initial proposal was to add a _new_ interface > that allowed safe removals while traversing the list (and allow > the existing macros to be changed for debugging purposes/extra > sanity checks). > > -- > Dan Eischen > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0207041030070.6975-100000>