On Thu, 2006-11-16 at 18:25 -0500, John W. Linville wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 17, 2006 at 12:04:29AM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > Remove things like "for (;;)" or "for (; condition ;)".
> > Ever heard of while loops?
>
> > --- wireless-dev.orig/net/d80211/sta_info.c 2006-11-16 23:40:48.164935990
> > +0100
> > +++ wireless-dev/net/d80211/sta_info.c 2006-11-16 23:55:34.634935990
> > +0100
> > @@ -299,7 +299,7 @@ static void sta_info_cleanup_expire_buff
> > if (skb_queue_empty(&sta->ps_tx_buf))
> > return;
> >
> > - for (;;) {
> > + while (1) {
> > spin_lock_irqsave(&sta->ps_tx_buf.lock, flags);
> > skb = skb_peek(&sta->ps_tx_buf);
> > if (sta_info_buffer_expired(local, sta, skb)) {
>
> FWIW, I think I prefer the "for (;;)" version for endless loops.
> It looks more intentional to me. Some grep'ing showed nearly equal
> usage of "for (;;)" versus "while (1)". Is there any "official"
> preference? I don't see anything in CodingStyle about it.
I don't know about official preference, but in ages past, using
"for(;;)" was preferable because "while(1)" would often invoke a
"statement has no effect" warning from the compiler. gcc 4.0.2 doesn't
have this problem, but IIRC it used to.
FWIW, I prefer "for(;;)" because of painful memories with other people's
code and -Werror, but I don't barf at "while(1)".
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
