On Thu, 23 Apr 2020 08:41:05 -0600, "Theo de Raadt" wrote: > My questions boil down to: > > 1) When are too many APIs too may? (It seems there is some agreement already) > > 2) Is STAILQ more ubiqitous? (I suspect so)
STAILQ is supported by: FreeBSD, macOS, NetBSD, Solaris, Linux (via libbsd) SIMPLEQ is supported by: NetBSD, OpenBSD, Solaris So based on a quick survey, STAILQ is more ubiqitous. > 3) Can upstream be convinced to use STAILQ instead? Upstream *is* using STAILQ, we're the ones who only support SIMPLEQ. Personally, I would rather replace SIMPLEQ with STAILQ in our code, though I suspect that is not a popular opinion here. When I see STAILQ I know exactly what it means and it is consistent with the other macros. I find that the SIMPLEQ naming conveys very little meaning and I always have to go check to see if it is singly or doubly linked. Of course, like most things, you get used to the way things are... - todd
