[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200801280141.12424.david-b@pacbell.net>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 01:41:11 -0800
From: David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Haavard Skinnemoen <hskinnemoen@...el.com>,
Andrew Victor <linux@...im.org.za>,
Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...el.com>,
Patrice Vilchez <patrice.vilchez@....atmel.com>,
Richard Purdie <rpurdie@...ys.net>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel@...32linux.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm 2/2] PWM LED driver
On Monday 28 January 2008, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > - if (i > 0) {
> > - for (i = i - 1; i >= 0; i--) {
> > - led_classdev_unregister(&leds[i].cdev);
> > - pwm_channel_free(&leds[i].pwmc);
> > - }
> > + while (i-- > 0) {
> > + led_classdev_unregister(&leds[i].cdev);
> > + pwm_channel_free(&leds[i].pwmc);
> > }
>
> Looks OK, although I'd say that `while (--i >= 0)' is more idiomatic -
> predecrement, postincrement and all that?
Except for the "unsigned i;" declaration earlier... given that,
"while (true) cpu_relax();" becomes maximally idiomatic. :)
Odd how PDP-11 idioms linger. Just because C was designed on
that processor ...
--
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