From owner-freebsd-current  Thu Apr 10 18:14:57 1997
Return-Path: <owner-current>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id SAA16800
          for current-outgoing; Thu, 10 Apr 1997 18:14:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu (khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu [18.24.4.193])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id SAA16794
          for <current@FreeBSD.ORG>; Thu, 10 Apr 1997 18:14:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from wollman@localhost)
	by khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id VAA05848;
	Thu, 10 Apr 1997 21:14:06 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 21:14:06 -0400 (EDT)
From: Garrett Wollman <wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu>
Message-Id: <199704110114.VAA05848@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu>
To: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org>
Cc: wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu (Garrett Wollman), current@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: WHY? ...non-use of TAILQ macros...
In-Reply-To: <199704110039.RAA10331@phaeton.artisoft.com>
References: <199704110021.UAA05660@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu>
	<199704110039.RAA10331@phaeton.artisoft.com>
Sender: owner-current@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

<<On Thu, 10 Apr 1997 17:39:39 -0700 (MST), Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> said:

>> > kern_lockf.c:				while (ltmp = overlap->lf_blkhd.tqh_first) {

>> 2.  Because they are unnecessary.

> Well, that begs the question of qhy they are being used in declarations
> and elsewhere, then, doesn't it?

I never said that the declaration macros were unnecessary.  I said
that macros like TAILQ_FIRST are unnecessary.  Some people disagree
(notably David G. and Justin).

-GAWollman

--
Garrett A. Wollman   | O Siem / We are all family / O Siem / We're all the same
wollman@lcs.mit.edu  | O Siem / The fires of freedom 
Opinions not those of| Dance in the burning flame
MIT, LCS, CRS, or NSA|                     - Susan Aglukark and Chad Irschick