Re: [TRIVIAL PATCH] Remove list_t infection.

[Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>]

In message <1030945918.939.3143.camel@phantasy> you write:
> 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.
> 
> 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.

Because renaming breaks things for no good reason.  "list_head is
ugly" is insufficient cause: it doesn't cause bugs (cf. skb_realloc).

You want to clean up some ugliness?  Find every
list_for_each/list_entry pair and substitute list_for_each_entry().

> Second, if we want to force people to change, we should remove "list_t"
> too to prevent new uses creeping in.  Plus, like Linus says, it is often
> to break stuff and cleanup the mess...

I did: see the patch.

Really, I don't care whether it's "struct list_head" or "list_t", but
both is stupid.  And since struct list_head is backwards compatible,
that's the winner here.

As someone who has been slowly feeding ISO-C declarated initializers
into 2.5, I am acutely aware of the cost of widespread change.

Hope that clarifies,
Rusty.
--
  Anyone who quotes me in their sig is an idiot. -- Rusty Russell.