lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Dec]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [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@tmr.com>
"Woe unto the statesman who makes war without a reason that will still
be valid when the war is over..." Otto von Bismark




\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-12-03 00:21    [W:0.128 / U:0.044 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site