--SLDf9lqlvOQaIe6s
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline

Dear Simon,

On Fri, Oct 20, 2006 at 11:38:28AM +1000, Simon Burge wrote:
> In retrospect with the following suggestions, it would have been easier
> to say "try to use TAILQ_FOREACH every time you see a for loop, rather
> than list them all out...

sure! but i didn't to break too much in one go :-) so i decided first to go 
for the safe option :)

A few routines have a check to see if the `next' has been changed and 
reloop, what to do with those i dont know yet.

> and here?  I looks like the "vp = nvp;" for each case is the same
> as just saying "vp = vp->v_mntvnodes ....".
> 
> As they stand, wouldn't those changes above need to change the
> 
> 	nvp = vp->v_mntvnodes.le_next;
> 
> line to
> 
> 	nvp = TAILQ_NEXT(vp->v_mntvnodes)

those should all be fixed :) or it wouldn't compile ;) i'll double check 
though!

Thanks for the feedback,
Reinoud


--SLDf9lqlvOQaIe6s
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.1 (NetBSD)

iQEVAwUBRTiyvIKcNwBDyKpoAQKxqwf/WSJA55pvnpda5uPQv2nLIeTavPwbBVkJ
4ZP+71ziBfzvbgOK2O5mWPDVodzjjYHfvbtxWN3F9PV5zwTJbOCY4RHUuY4xXZoB
akbWyUtv26OqtDLt4Zk49Opaw8tpp4rrGsRMQ7mTGkzxMzvBXchoCGO6TJn2qmcI
6vR9Y5r5cwgBbKvtZzXbL4M5YxD7U1H6M1AdlJv+owjgtA2K47HmezFMkwLSyemF
8zFe44+9k1KJCBlKwMml/HHiU2jnYdinrrE+VG6Xe4pl+NGaZOU/WxcOwjOEDXY9
grDTOe89dIXgYPrw5TjJgOxMQgS7gWJ91/6HIccHet8C6Ee2xY6PRg==
=RejE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--SLDf9lqlvOQaIe6s--