On Tue, 2007-02-13 at 21:54 +1100, Nick Piggin wrote: > Bernd Petrovitsch wrote: > > On Tue, 2007-02-13 at 18:42 +1100, Nick Piggin wrote: > > > >>Joe Perches wrote: > > > > [...] > > > >>>perhaps: > >>> > >>>#define array_for_each(element, array) \ > >>> for ((element) = (array); \ > >>> (element) < ((array) + ARRAY_SIZE((array))); \ > >>> (element)++) > >> > >>If you're going for consistency, then shouldn't this be > >>array_for_each_entry()? > > > > > > That depends on the decision between consistency to array_for_each_index > > or consistency to list_for_each. > > I don't follow.
Yes, thinko on my side. Sorry. > list_for_each gives you a list_head. > list_for_each_entry gives you a pointer to an entry in the list, which > is equivalent to the above loop which gives a pointer to an entry in the > array. Accordingly, it should be called array_for_each_entry. What sort > of logic leads to another conclusion? The wrong logic that list_for_each gives an entry. Sorry f.t. confusion. Bernd -- Firmix Software GmbH http://www.firmix.at/ mobil: +43 664 4416156 fax: +43 1 7890849-55 Embedded Linux Development and Services - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/