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]
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