linux-kernel - Re: Coding style RFC: convert "for (i=0;i<ARRAY_SIZE(array);i++)" to "array_for

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <1171362988.21261.12.camel@tara.firmix.at>
Date:	Tue, 13 Feb 2007 11:36:28 +0100
From:	Bernd Petrovitsch <bernd@...mix.at>
To:	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
Cc:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
	Ben Nizette <ben.nizette@...et.net.au>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Coding style RFC: convert "for (i=0;i<ARRAY_SIZE(array);i++)"
	to "array_for_each(index, array)"

On Tue, 2007-02-13 at 18:42 +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> Joe Perches wrote:
[...]
> > perhaps:
> > 
> > #define array_for_each(element, array) \
> > 	for ((element) = (array); \
> > 	     (element) < ((array) + ARRAY_SIZE((array))); \
> > 	     (element)++)
> 
> If you're going for consistency, then shouldn't this be
> array_for_each_entry()?

That depends on the decision between consistency to array_for_each_index
or consistency to list_for_each.

> > #define array_for_each_index(index, array) \
> > 	for ((index) = 0; (index) < ARRAY_SIZE((array)); (index)++)

	Bernd
-- 
Firmix Software GmbH                   http://www.firmix.at/
mobil: +43 664 4416156                 fax: +43 1 7890849-55
          Embedded Linux Development and Services

-
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/