| To: | Jeff Liu <jeff.liu@xxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH 0/6] list: introduce list_last_entry_or_null() |
| From: | Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Fri, 15 Nov 2013 06:11:00 -0800 |
| Cc: | linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, jfs-discussion@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, jiri@xxxxxxxxxxx, gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, oleg@xxxxxxxxxx, "xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx" <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>, cluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxx, linux-mtd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| Delivered-to: | xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <5285A33C.4040808@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <5285A33C.4040808@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) |
On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 12:29:48PM +0800, Jeff Liu wrote: > Hi Folks, > > This patch is trying to introduce a new list helper to retrieve the > last entry or return NULL if the list is empty corresponding to it, > which is inspired by Jiri Pirko's list_first_entry_or_null(). How did we end up with the stupid _or_null prefix there? I think the functionality is useful, but the naming is way to verbose, especially given that a list_first_entry or list_last_entry that optimizes away that one check doesn't seem useful. Instead of encoding detailed semantics in the name a good kerneldoc comment is way better. |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH] xfsprogs/quota: fix NULL pointer dereference in report_f, Christoph Hellwig |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [Cluster-devel] [PATCH 0/6] list: introduce list_last_entry_or_null(), Steven Whitehouse |
| Previous by Thread: | [PATCH 0/6] list: introduce list_last_entry_or_null(), Jeff Liu |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [Cluster-devel] [PATCH 0/6] list: introduce list_last_entry_or_null(), Steven Whitehouse |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |