On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 07:14:49PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote: > On Tue, 15 Feb 2022, Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > It's hard to parse for-loop which has some magic calculations inside. > > Much cleaner to use while-loop directly. > > I assume you're trying to prove a point following our recent > for-vs-while loop discussion. I really can't think of any other reason > you'd end up looking at this file or this loop. > > With the change, the loop indeed becomes simpler, but it also runs one > iteration further than the original. Whoops. Yeah, sorry for that, the initial condition should be d = depth - 1, of course. > It's a selftest. The loop's been there for five years. What are we > trying to achieve here? So we disagree on loops, fine. Perhaps this is > not the best use of either of our time? Please just let the for loops in > i915 be. Yes, I'm pretty much was sure that no-one will go and apply this anyway (so I haven't paid too much attention), but to prove my point in the certain discussion. And yes, the point is for the new code, I'm not going to change existing suboptimal and too hard to read for-loops, it will consume my time later when I will try to understand the code. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
