| 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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <20070213082845.84212ca0.randy.dunlap@oracle.com> Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 08:28:45 -0800 From: Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com> To: Muli Ben-Yehuda <muli@...ibm.com> Cc: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>, 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, 13 Feb 2007 09:37:38 +0200 Muli Ben-Yehuda wrote: > On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 03:47:50PM -0800, Joe Perches wrote: > > > Now that most of the sizeof(array)/sizeof(array[0]) conversions have > > been done (there are about 800 done and about another 130 left), > > perhaps it could be useful to change the code to use a define > > similar to the list_for_each > > > > #define list_for_each(pos, head) \ > > for (pos = (head)->next; prefetch(pos->next), pos != (head); \ > > pos = pos->next) > > > > perhaps > > > > #define array_for_each(index, array) \ > > for ((index) = 0; (index) < ARRAY_SIZE((array)); (index)++) > > Could we please stop "improving" the C language? it has served us fine > so far. I'm with Muli. The open-coded for loop is fine (using ARRAY_SIZE). --- ~Randy *** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code *** - 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