[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4935C219.3070006@tmr.com>
Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2008 18:17:45 -0500
From: Bill Davidsen <davidsen@....com>
To: Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>, Bill Davidsen <davidsen@....com>,
roel kluin <roel.kluin@...il.com>, adilger@....com,
linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ext3, ext4: do_split() fix loop, with obvious unsigned
wrap
Theodore Tso wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 02, 2008 at 12:08:38PM -0500, Bill Davidsen wrote:
>
>> Sorry, you are reading it wrong, the i values inside the loop are
>> identical to those in the original. The value of i starts at count, and
>> the test comes *before* the value is used inside the loop. The values of
>> i inside the loop start at count-1 and go to zero, just as it did in the
>> original. That's why the "i--" is there, the test is on the
>> unincremented value range count to one, but the value inside the loop is
>> correct (or at least is the same as the original patch).
>>
>
> You're right; my bad. But with something like this:
>
>
>>>> + for (i = count; i--; ) {
>>>>
>
> ...where there is no third part of the for loop, and a decrement in
> the second part of the loop, just for clarity's sake, it's much better
> to write it as a while loop.
>
I seriously disagree on that, writing it as a for makes it totally clear
that the index initialization is part of the loop.
I know, looks funny, not the way we have always done it, not invented
here...
--
Bill Davidsen <davidsen@....com>
"Woe unto the statesman who makes war without a reason that will still
be valid when the war is over..." Otto von Bismark
--
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