Re: [PATCH 0.01/1] hlist_for_each_entry_xxx: kill the "pos" argument

["Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>]

On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 08:23:37PM +0400, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 04/22, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 13:09:21 +0400 Oleg Nesterov <oleg@tv-sign.ru> wrote:
> > > On 04/21, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Might it be better to do this in two
> > > > phases to allow these patches to be applied incrementally?
> > > >
> > > > 1.	Change all to "obsolete" __hlist_for_each_entry_xxx().
> > > >
> > > > 2.	Incrementally change to hlist_for_each_entry_xxx(), removing
> > > > 	the extra variable where possible.
> > >
> > > Yes sure. Actually this was my initial plan.
> > >
> > > Andrew, which way do you prefer?
> >
> > Neither ;)
> >
> > The smoothest transition would come by adding new macros with new names,
> > then migrating all callers over then removing the old macros.
> 
> OK, will do, but....
> 
> > Preferably after leaving the old, unused macros in place for a kernel
> > cycle, but there's not much value in that unless we can make them emil
> > warnings when used, which isn't completely trivial.
> 
> we can make
> 
> 	static inline void __deprecated nop_for_hlist_for_each_entry(void) {}
> 
> and insert it into the old macro's body
> 
> > Plus there is no sensible new name which we can use.  Maybe you can think
> > of one, in which case that'd be a nice way to go.
> 
> Ah. But this _is_ the problem. There is no a good name for hlist_for_each_entry()
> except of course hlist_for_each_entry.

hlist_for_every_entry()?  (Sorry, couldn't resist...)

							Thanx, Paul

> Well. I'll use hnode_for_each_entry_xxx(), but please let me know if you
> change your mind ;)
> 
> Oleg.
>