Re: [Final call for testers][PATCH] superblock handling changes

[Alexander Viro]

On Fri, 15 Jun 2001, Alexander Viro wrote:

> > > +	list_add (&s->s_list, super_blocks.prev);
> > 
> > I'd use list_add_tail(&s->s_list, super_blocks);
> 
> Umm... Why? I've no problems with either variant, but I really see no
> clear win (or loss) in list_add_tail here. If there is some code that

OK, my fault - I shouldn't post before the first cup of coffee. Sorry -
I've missed the point here. Yes, list_add_tail() would be OK here.