On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 7:35 PM Lee Jones <lee@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, 22 May 2023, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 10:14 AM Lee Jones <lee@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On Thu, 18 May 2023, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 10:52 PM Martin Kurbanov
> > > > <mmkurbanov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
...
> > > > I would do
> > > >
> > > > i = 0;
> > > >
> > > > here and drop the assignment in the definition block to be more robust
> > >
> > > "here" where?
> >
> > > You've removed all context.
> >
> > That's not true. The below line exclusively defines the location in
> > the code that I'm talking about. Note, Martin understood that AFAICT
> > and addressed in the new version.
>
> I'd expect the author to have a solid understanding of the code. I
> found this difficult to read as-was and had to go look at the patch to
> understand it.
I see your point.
> No biggy. Just something to bear in mind.
No worries, and thanks for the remark. I'll try my best to satisfy
others and not only the author of the code in the future reviews.
> > > > against sudden reuse of i in between.
> > > >
> > > > > + device_for_each_child_node(dev, child) {
> > > >
> > > > > + i++;
> > > > > + }
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
