On Fri, 22 Mar 2024, Ilpo Järvinen wrote: > On Tue, 19 Mar 2024, Reinette Chatre wrote: > > On 3/11/2024 6:52 AM, Ilpo Järvinen wrote: > > > The open() side handles fds in a for loop but close() is based on two > > > fixed indexes READ and WRITE. > > > > > > Match the close() side with the open() side by using for loop for > > > consistency. > > > > I find the close() side to be more appropriate. I say this for two > > reasons: (a) looking at the close() calls as they are now it is > > obvious what the close() applies to and transitioning to a loop > > adds a layer of unnecessary indirection, (b) I do not think a loop > > is appropriate for the READ/WRITE define that just happen to be 0 > > and 1 ... there should not be an assumption about their underlying > > value. > > Hi, > > So to confirm are you suggesting I should remove all the other loops > instead? Nevermind, I read the comment to second patch, so the answer is yes. :-) -- i.
