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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 17:01:51 -0700 From: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com> To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> Cc: "Ed L. Cashin" <ecashin@...aid.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] stacked ifs (was Re: [PATCH 02/12] handle multiple network paths to AoE device) On Mon, Jul 16, 2007 at 03:31:55PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > 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. I agree, let's stick with the convention we already have and use instead. thanks, greg k-h - 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