From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from ipmail04.adl6.internode.on.net ([150.101.137.141]:33590 "EHLO ipmail04.adl6.internode.on.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750793Ab3GHEhQ (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Jul 2013 00:37:16 -0400 Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2013 14:37:09 +1000 From: Dave Chinner To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=F6rn?= Engel Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Chris Mason , linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] introduce list_for_each_entry_del Message-ID: <20130708043709.GB3438@dastard> References: <1370280485-10047-1-git-send-email-joern@logfs.org> <20130705204100.GA15943@logfs.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 In-Reply-To: <20130705204100.GA15943@logfs.org> Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, Jul 05, 2013 at 04:41:00PM -0400, Jörn Engel wrote: > On Mon, 3 June 2013 13:28:03 -0400, Joern Engel wrote: > > > > A purely janitorial patchset. A fairly common pattern is to take a > > list, remove every object from it and do something with this object - > > usually kfree() some variant. A stupid grep identified roughly 300 > > instances, with many more hidden behind more complicated patterns to > > achieve the same end results. > > Next version of the same patchset. Object size is shrinking now, at > least for the one compiler I tested. And a few kernel hackers met on > a frozen lake in hell with pigs flying overhead and could actually > agree on a name. While I am sure almost every reader will still > disagree and have one or two better suggestions, I would like to use > this historical moment. > > list_del_each and list_del_each_entry is shall be! Can you add _init variants to this? There are many loops that actually require list_del_init() rather than list_del()... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com