lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Jul]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] kernel.h: Add for_each_if()
From
Date
On 07/13/2018 04:37 PM, NeilBrown wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 11 2018, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 11 Jul 2018 13:51:08 +0200 Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch> wrote:
>>
>>> But I still have the situation that a bunch of maintainers acked this
>>> and Andrew Morton defacto nacked it, which I guess means I'll keep the
>>> macro in drm? The common way to go about this seems to be to just push
>>> the patch series with the ack in some pull request to Linus and ignore
>>> the people who raised questions, but not really my thing.
>>
>> Heh.
>>
>> But, am I wrong? Code which uses regular kernel style doesn't have
>> these issues. We shouldn't be enabling irregular style - we should be
>> making such sites more regular. The fact that the compiler generates a
>> nice warning in some cases simply helps us with that.
>
> I think you are wrong .... or at least, not completely correct.
>
> I think it is perfectly acceptable in Linux to have code like:
>
> for (....)
> if (x)
> something();
> else
> something_else();
>
> Would you agree? If not, then I'm the one who is wrong. Otherwise....

coding-style.rst says:
Also, use braces when a loop contains more than a single simple statement:


> The problem is that for certain poorly written for_each_foo() macros,
> such as blkg_for_each_descendant_pre() (and several others identified in
> this patch series), writing
>
> blkg_for_each_descendant_pre(...)
> if (x)
> something();
> else
> something_else();
>
> will trigger a compiler warning. This is inconsistent with the
> behaviour of a simple "for".
> So I do think that the macros should be fixed, and I don't think that
> sprinkling extra braces is an appropriate response.
>
> I'm not personally convinced that writing
> if_no_else(cond)
> is easier than just writing
> if (!(cond)); else

agreed.

> in these macros, but I do think that the macros should be fixed and
> maybe this is the path-of-least-resistance to getting it done.

I'm not opposed to fixing some macros, but some of these macros are just
ease-of-less-typing shortcuts. They don't improve readability at all;
they harm it. (of course, that is just one opinion :)



--
~Randy
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-07-15 22:07    [W:0.489 / U:0.352 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site