On Wed, Jul 04, 2012 at 11:32:38PM -0700, Keith Packard wrote: > Peter Hutterer <peter.hutte...@who-t.net> writes: > > > Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutte...@who-t.net> > > --- > > Keith, please merge this directly if you're happy with it. > > It looks fine, but I don't see any place that this actually matters in > current code?
no, but the selinux fix will need it (partially out of laziness, partially to make the code nicer). > (the more I see of these twisty list macros, the more I prefer > open-coded lists though; wow this is hard to understand). given how often we've found bugs in open-coded lists I disagree. yes, they're hairy but they're tested, the macro behaves the same everywhere. and if you really worry about the code being wrong, run it through the pre-processor and it will look like an open-coded list. Cheers, Peter _______________________________________________ xorg-devel@lists.x.org: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
