linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 05/11] x86/xen: Register resources required by kexec-tools

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]

Message-ID: <20121001132815.GF2942@host-192-168-1-59.local.net-space.pl>
Date:	Mon, 1 Oct 2012 15:28:15 +0200
From:	Daniel Kiper <daniel.kiper@...cle.com>
To:	Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...e.com>
Cc:	Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
	andrew.cooper3@...rix.com, xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/11] x86/xen: Register resources required by kexec-tools

On Mon, Oct 01, 2012 at 10:40:01AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 28.09.12 at 18:21, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 08:06:32PM +0200, Daniel Kiper wrote:
> >> +	for (i = 0; i < cpus; ++i) {
> >
> > Any specific reason for using '++i' instead of 'i++' ?
>
> For people occasionally also writing C++ code this is the
> canonical form.

Heh... I have not written any C++ code since the end
of my C++ course at my university (~18 years).
I am just prefer '++i' instead of 'i++'.
That is it.

Daniel
--
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/