[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180709160342.GA2476@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2018 18:03:42 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
DRI Development <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
Intel Graphics Development <intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...el.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/12] sched: use for_each_if in topology.h
On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 05:52:04PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> for_each_something(foo)
> if (foo->bla)
> call_bla(foo);
> else
> call_default(foo);
>
> Totally contrived, but this complains. Liberally sprinkling {} also shuts
> up the compiler, but it's a bit confusing given that a plain for {;;} is
> totally fine. And it's confusing since at first glance the compiler
> complaining about nested if and ambigous else doesn't make sense since
> clearly there's only 1 if there.
Ah, so the pattern the compiler tries to warn about is:
if (foo)
if (bar)
/* stmts1 */
else
/* stmts2 *
Because it might not be immediately obvious with which if the else goes.
Which is fair enough I suppose.
OK, ACK.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists