Comment by cmroanirgo

I can't help but notice how this code, as well as in the article, there's no checks for a) a NULL list or b) that the item is in fact part of the list. A simple fix is:

  while (!!walk && walk != entry) {
     prev = walk;
     walk = walk->next;
  }

or

  while (!!indirect && !!(*indirect) && (*indirect) != entry)
          indirect = &(*indirect)->next;

...because without those checks it's pretty easy to see where you'll crash... but by putting in those checks, perhaps the second method might actually be less 'elegant'.

Edit: did I miss something? Re-checking this, the second method will still crash if/when next is NULL (because you can't get the address of NULL), which means the 'elegant' seems to be a quagmire of lurking faults.