[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <45CA6711.40502@student.ltu.se>
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2007 00:56:01 +0100
From: Richard Knutsson <ricknu-0@...dent.ltu.se>
To: Josh Triplett <josh@...nel.org>
CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] rcutorture: Remove redundant assignment to cur_ops
in for loop
Josh Triplett wrote:
> The for loop in rcutorture_init uses the condition
> cur_ops = torture_ops[i], cur_ops
> but then makes the same assignment to cur_ops inside the loop. Remove the
> redundant assignment inside the loop, and remove now-unnecessary braces.
>
> Signed-off-by: Josh Triplett <josh@...nel.org>
> ---
> kernel/rcutorture.c | 7 ++-----
> 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/rcutorture.c b/kernel/rcutorture.c
> index 0c7bf0c..7258bcb 100644
> --- a/kernel/rcutorture.c
> +++ b/kernel/rcutorture.c
> @@ -875,12 +875,9 @@ rcu_torture_init(void)
>
> /* Process args and tell the world that the torturer is on the job. */
>
> - for (i = 0; cur_ops = torture_ops[i], cur_ops; i++) {
> - cur_ops = torture_ops[i];
> - if (strcmp(torture_type, cur_ops->name) == 0) {
> + for (i = 0; cur_ops = torture_ops[i], cur_ops; i++)
>
May be tired right now, but wouldn't it be more logical with:
for (i = 0; cur_ops = torture_ops[i], i++)
Right now it seems to have two conditions for cur_ops.
Just my 2cent
Richard Knutsson
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists