Subject: Re: TAILQ_FOREACH_REVERSE et al (PR 11117)
To: None <>
From: enami tsugutomo <>
List: tech-kern
Date: 10/04/2000 12:33:14 writes:

> The reason that I had for doing this was the broken
> TAILQ_FOREACH_REVERSE.  To my mind, it was much easier to see that it
> was broken with the macro-ized version.

If you believe macro-ized version is readable, why do you leave
(elm)->field.le_prev and so on as is, instead of defining macros for
internal use and using them?


	(listelm)->field.cqe_next->field.cqe_prev = (elm);

is simple and easier enough to understand what is going on than

	CIRCLEQ_PREV(CIRCLEQ_NEXT((listelm), field), field) = (elm);