On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 12:36 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 10:36:49AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: >> Avoids complaints from gcc about ambiguous else clauses. > > Is that a new thing? I'm fairly sure I've never seen it do that, > >> Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxxx> >> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> include/linux/topology.h | 2 +- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/include/linux/topology.h b/include/linux/topology.h >> index cb0775e1ee4b..4fba5a5b148d 100644 >> --- a/include/linux/topology.h >> +++ b/include/linux/topology.h >> @@ -40,7 +40,7 @@ >> >> #define for_each_node_with_cpus(node) \ >> for_each_online_node(node) \ >> - if (nr_cpus_node(node)) >> + for_each_if (nr_cpus_node(node)) > > Not having gotten any of the other patches, I'm not really sure what > this does and such, but improve readability it does not :/ Patch 1 in this series, which I dumped onto lkml as a whole: https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/7/9/179 Imo it does improve readability for the if (!cond) {} else pattern. And (assuming my grep fu isn't too badly wrong) most places in the kernel do use this pattern in for_each macros, so I guess its a real thing. We've definitely hit it plenty in drm iterators (but we seem to like if() checks in iterator macros maybe a bit too much). I'm happy to drop this patch tough if you deem it offensive. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
