On Tue, 15 Feb 2022, Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. Well, no, the condition should be while (--i) instead to also match the values the original loop takes. ;D Cheers, Jani. > >> 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. -- Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center
