On Sunday September 1, email@example.com wrote:
> On Mon, 2002-09-02 at 01:23, Rusty Russell wrote:
> >> This week, it spread to SCTP.
> >> "struct list_head" isn't a great name, but having two names for
> >> everything is yet another bar to reading kernel source.
> On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 01:51:54AM -0400, Robert Love wrote:
> > I am all for your cleanup here, but two nits:
> > Why not rename list_head while at it? I would vote for just "struct
> > list" ... the name is long, and I like my lines to fit 80 columns.
> Seconded. Throw the whole frog in the blender, please, not just
The struct in question is a handle on an element of a list, or the
head of a list, but it is not a list itself. A list is a number of
stuctures each of which contain (inherit from?) the particular
structure. So calling it "struct list" would be wrong, because it
isn't a list, only part of one.
Maybe "struct list_element" or "struct list_entry" would be OK. But
I'm happy with "struct list_head", because the thing is, at least
sometimes, the head of a list.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to firstname.lastname@example.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Sep 07 2002 - 22:00:15 EST