linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] stacked ifs (was Re: [PATCH 02/12] handle multiple network paths to AoE device)

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: <20070716153155.8a63c15d.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Mon, 16 Jul 2007 15:31:55 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	"Ed L. Cashin" <ecashin@...aid.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Greg K-H <greg@...ah.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] stacked ifs (was Re: [PATCH 02/12] handle multiple
 network paths to AoE device)

On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 18:17:44 -0400
"Ed L. Cashin" <ecashin@...aid.com> wrote:

> > ugh.  Do this:
> > 
> > 	do {
> > 		if (t == d->htgt)
> > 			continue;
> > 		if (!(*t)->ifp->nd)
> > 			continue;
> > 		if ((*t)->nout >= (*t)->maxout)
> > 			continue;
> > 			
> > 		<stuff>
> > 	} while (++t ...)
> 
> Do you think the "stacked ifs" in the first version above could be
> accepted as a convenient extension to the K&R-based conventions in
> Documentation/CodingStyle?

Maybe.  I don't recall seeing any kernel code which uses that convention:
everyone uses &&.  So personally I'd prefer to see kernel code stick to the
one convention, given that there is not, afacit, any significant advantage
to the alternative one.
-
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/