>> c. The changes in this OVS patchset seem to allow easier backport but >> that won't really be the case for OVN. >> >> I wonder if it makes sense to keep both versions: >> - the old *_SAFE(.., next, ..) >> - a new *_SAFE_V2 (or a better name) that drops the need for explicitly >> supplied "next". >> >> What do you think? > > How about *_SAFE_OLD(...) for the old one and *_SAFE(...) for the new one? :-D > I'm just thinking that it would be a way to promote the use of the new and > cleaner iterator in new code. > > On the other hand, moving most of the users to the new macro should be a good > example while we keep backwards compatibility. But even if we do keep the old > name of the old version of the macro, it should have a new implementation > that makes sure the "next" variable is not left pointing to something > invalid, so I guess the backwards compatibility is broken anyway. What do you > think?
Maybe we can overload the macro instead? With something like this: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/9183993/msvc-variadic-macro-expansion/24028231#24028231 Best regards, Ilya Maximets. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
