On 06/30/2011 12:19 PM, Arend van Spriel wrote:
On 06/30/2011 10:37 AM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
That's pretty ugly. Better to leave the original in and ignore the
checkpatch warning. Or maybe do something like this:
for (idx = 0; (int) idx< WLC_MAXBSSCFG; idx++) { \
cfg = (wlc)->bsscfg[idx]; \
if (!cfg) \
continue; \
Then #define END_FOREACH_BSS() }
Hi Dan,
I agree this is not the nicest solution. It was a checkpatch error so we
felt an urge to fix it. A warning would have been easier to ignore. I
will have a look and see whether the patch can be dropped without
issues. Your feedback is noted so I will look for a better iteration
solution to replace this.
Hi Greg,
Can you please drop this patch from the series? There are no
dependencies with the other patches.
Gr. AvS
--
Almost nobody dances sober, unless they happen to be insane.
-- H.P. Lovecraft --
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
