On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 11:02:58 -0800, David Brownell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thursday 17 March 2005 1:54 am, Brian Murphy wrote: > > Executive summary: > > loop until dependant device list is empty instead of for loop over > > changing list. > > In various other cases I've found that list_for_each_safe() is > actually not safe, and so I've had to switch to that same sort > of while-not-empty idiom. > > This makes me wonder about either compiler issues or basic > semantic issues with the definition of "safe" ... I leaned > towards thinking that "safe" was a misnomer, probably just > shorthand for "safe_except_for_what_you_really_want". >
Well, as far as "list_*_safe" macros go they are actually "safe as far as deleting an element from the list in the middle of the loop by the same thread of execution", no more, no less. I wonder if we need to add the above sentence in capital letters in list.h -- Dmitry ------------------------------------------------------- SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click _______________________________________________ linux-usb-devel@lists.sourceforge.net To unsubscribe, use the last form field at: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
