On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 8:55 PM Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, 2021-10-12 at 23:48 +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 8:43 PM Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2021-10-12 at 23:30 +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 2:37 PM Alexandru Ardelean
> > > > <ardeleanalex@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 12:18 PM Yang Yingliang
> > > > > <yangyingliang@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
...
> > > > I prefer to see
> > > >
> > > > - for (; unwind_idx >= 0; unwind_idx--) {
> > > > + while (unwind_idx--)
> > >
> > > Not the same code as unwind_idx would be decremented before entering
> > > the code block.
> >
> > It's kinda cryptic what you are pointing out.
>
> Not really,
It's. It lacks the very same "additional" words to explain what you
meant and why.
> > What's needed additionally is to change
> >
> > - unwind_idx = iio_dev_opaque->attached_buffers_cnt - 1;
> > + unwind_idx = i;
>
> You left out that 'additional change' above from your reply.
Yes, that's true, but it took some time to decrypt your message.
> > Of course not. See above. The usual pattern is
> >
> > while (i--)
> > do_clean_item(i);
>
> Of course, but that's not what you replied.
> I was merely pointing out that your reply included a logic change
> converting a loop from for to while.
I expect that developers actually think about the changes they do and
double check what's proposed by reviewers. If they just copy'n'paste
whatever others propose, I wouldn't take any patch from such a
developer.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
