Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 12:39:42 +0400 From: Yar Tikhiy <yar@comp.chem.msu.su> To: "Christian S.J. Peron" <csjp@FreeBSD.org> Cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org, src-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/nfsclient bootp_subr.c Message-ID: <20060630083942.GA71578@comp.chem.msu.su> In-Reply-To: <44A45D3E.2040004@FreeBSD.org> References: <200606291537.k5TFbeUg075956@repoman.freebsd.org> <44A45D3E.2040004@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Jun 29, 2006 at 06:07:42PM -0500, Christian S.J. Peron wrote: > Yar Tikhiy wrote: > >yar 2006-06-29 15:37:39 UTC > > > > FreeBSD src repository > > > > Modified files: > > sys/nfsclient bootp_subr.c > > Log: > > Use the elegant TAILQ_FOREACH() in place of a hand-rolled for() loop. > > > > Revision Changes Path > > 1.65 +1 -3 src/sys/nfsclient/bootp_subr.c > > > > > > > Just as a point of curiosity, in some places, people are using for loops > to avoid invalid pointer dereferences in the event that one of the queue > items is removed by the code in the loop while iterating. Are you using > TAILQ_FOREACH_SAFE() in such places if required? I was aware of TAILQ_FOREACH_SAFE(), but I didn't meet such places. All the code I'd changed fell into the simpler, scan'n'find, case. I was removing bogus ifa->ifa_addr checks from the networking code, and for some funny reason, almost each check found was sitting next to an old for() loop begging to be turned into TAILQ_FOREACH(). Did I miss a great idea hidden behind that? :-) -- Yar
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060630083942.GA71578>