Re: [hackers] [scron] [PATCH 1/3] Just use simple linked list instead of queue.h

Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ] [ by messages with attachments ]

From: Michael Forney <mforney_AT_mforney.org>
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2017 10:49:53 -0700

On 7/11/17, Laslo Hunhold <dev_AT_frign.de> wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 21:55:40 -0700
> Michael Forney <mforney_AT_mforney.org> wrote:
>
> Hey Michael,
>
> what's wrong with queue.h?

The simple linked list I proposed uses the same amount of code, and is
easier to understand because it isn't hidden behind a bunch of macros.

What's the advantage of queue.h over what I proposed?
Received on Tue Jul 11 2017 - 19:49:53 CEST

This message: [ Message body ]
Next message: Michael Forney: "Re: [hackers] [scron] [PATCH 3/3] Keep existing crontab entries if loading new entries fails"
Previous message: Michael Forney: "Re: [hackers] [scron] [PATCH 2/3] Handle out-of-memory"
In reply to: Laslo Hunhold: "Re: [hackers] [scron] [PATCH 1/3] Just use simple linked list instead of queue.h"
Next in thread: Dimitris Papastamos: "Re: [hackers] [scron] [PATCH 1/3] Just use simple linked list instead of queue.h"
Reply: Dimitris Papastamos: "Re: [hackers] [scron] [PATCH 1/3] Just use simple linked list instead of queue.h"

Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ] [ by messages with attachments ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Jul 11 2017 - 20:01:20 CEST