Re: [patch] sys_epoll 0.14 ...

[Davide Libenzi]

On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, Andrew Morton wrote:

> I was referring to these guys:
>
> +#define list_first(head)	(((head)->next != (head)) ? (head)->next: (struct list_head *) 0)
> +#define list_last(head)	(((head)->prev != (head)) ? (head)->prev: (struct list_head *) 0)
> +#define list_next(pos, head)	(((pos)->next != (head)) ? (pos)->next: (struct list_head *) 0)
> +#define list_prev(pos, head)	(((pos)->prev != (head)) ? (pos)->prev: (struct list_head *) 0)
>
> if we are to add such things to list.h then lots of people need
> to hum and hah over them first and ask questions like "why doesn't
> it use list_empty?"  ;)
>
> It would be better to recode epoll's list walks to use the existing
> list accessors.

Andrew, don't they better describe what you're actually doing instead of
the list_empty() trick ?

- Davide