linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 1/6] drm/format-helper: Add drm_fb_xrgb8888_to_gray8

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 14 Feb 2022 15:59:24 +0200
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@...e.de>
Cc:     Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>,
        Javier Martinez Canillas <javierm@...hat.com>,
        linux-fbdev@...r.kernel.org, David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
        Noralf Trønnes <noralf@...nnes.org>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
        Maxime Ripard <maxime@...no.tech>,
        Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/6] drm/format-helper: Add
 drm_fb_xrgb8888_to_gray8_line()

On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 01:12:48PM +0100, Thomas Zimmermann wrote:
> Am 14.02.22 um 11:38 schrieb Andy Shevchenko:
> > On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 10:03:53AM +0100, Thomas Zimmermann wrote:
> > > Am 11.02.22 um 16:41 schrieb Andy Shevchenko:

...

> > > > > IMO *always* prefer a for loop over while or do-while.
> > > > > 
> > > > > The for (i = 0; i < N; i++) is such a strong paradigm in C. You
> > > > > instantly know how many times you're going to loop, at a glance. Not so
> > > > > with with the alternatives, which should be used sparingly.
> > > > 
> > > > while () {}  _is_ a paradigm, for-loop is syntax sugar on top of it.
> > > 
> > > Naw, that's not true.
> > 
> > In the section 3.5 "Loops - While and For" in "The C Programming
> > Language" 2nd by K&R, the authors said:
> 
> Year of publication: 1988 . It's not the most up-to-date reference for C
> programming.

Yet this makes your above remark invalid, i.e. `for` _is_ syntax sugar despite
what you think it's idiomatic _nowadays_.

> > 	The for statement ... is equivalent to ... while..."
> > 
> > They said that for is equivalent to while, and not otherwise.
> 
> Even leaving readability aside, it's not equivalent. You can declare
> variables as part of the for statement. (I know it's not the kernel's
> style.) Also, 'continue' statements are not well-suited in for loops,
> because it's non-obvious if the loop's update statement is being executed.
> (It isn't.)

It's also written in the book :-)

> > Also, syntax sugar by definition declares something that can be written as
> > a single line of code, which usually is done using more (not always).
> 
> The discussion has entered the phase of hair splitting. Good.

I don't know why we are adding an oil into the flames...

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko