Hi,
On 2021/10/13 4:58, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
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.
I think in alloc path is using for loop, and in error/free path also
using for loop is better to read the code.
