On 26 Nov, 2013, at 01:55 , Alan Barrett <a...@cequrux.com> wrote:
>> - for (mp = mountlist.cqh_first; mp != (void*)&mountlist; mp = nmp) {
>> - nmp = mp->mnt_list.cqe_next;
>> + for (mp = mountlist.tqh_first; mp != (void*)&mountlist; mp = nmp) {
>> + nmp = mp->mnt_list.tqe_next;
>
> ... could be rewritten to use TAILQ_FOREACH.
Actually not TAILQ_FOREACH, but TAILQ_FOREACH_SAFE, though the operation
of the latter is obscure enough that one could be forgiven for writing
code that makes what is needed explicit.
For a minimal improvement just TAILQ_FIRST and TAILQ_NEXT would be good.
Dennis Ferguson
