On Wed, Jul 11 2018, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Jul 2018 13:51:08 +0200 Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx> 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....
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
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.
Thanks,
NeilBrown
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
