[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070717000151.GA5982@kroah.com>
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