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

[Linus Torvalds]

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 have to agree with Matthew - "list_add_tail()" more clearly says what
the code is trying to do.

Aside from that, I will bet you a dollar that you'll see that using
"list_add_tail()" generating better code. Why? Simply because that way one
of the pointers is a constant, instead of being through indirection. Try
it and see.

And if order is arbitrary, please just use

	list_add(&s->s_list, super_blocks);

because otherwise why use the ".prev" at all?

		Linus