[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <f361dcc9c25e46819100ba1634f56db1c867f1b8.camel@linux.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2018 11:11:12 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>, NeilBrown <neilb@...e.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
DRI Development <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
Intel Graphics Development <intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
Gustavo Padovan <gustavo@...ovan.org>,
Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com>,
Sean Paul <seanpaul@...omium.org>,
David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Wei Wang <wvw@...gle.com>, Stefan Agner <stefan@...er.ch>,
Andrei Vagin <avagin@...nvz.org>,
Yisheng Xie <ysxie@...mail.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kernel.h: Add for_each_if()
On Fri, 2018-07-13 at 16:42 -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On 07/13/2018 04:37 PM, NeilBrown wrote:
>
> coding-style.rst says:
> Also, use braces when a loop contains more than a single simple
> statement:
Independently on a) would we use some macro for condition, or b) fix
macros against this kind of nested conditions, there is another
weirdness we would like to avoid, i.e.
for_each_foo() {
...
} else {
...
}
It is written according to coding style, but too much weird.
So, summarize this discussion I think we would
- keep for_each_if() in DRM subsystem alone
- fix macros which are using positive condition 'if (cond)' by replacing
with 'if (!cond) {} else' form for sake of robustness.
Do you agree on that?
--
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Intel Finland Oy
Powered by blists - more mailing lists