Hi Joe, On 16/03/18 19:45, Joe Perches wrote: > On Fri, 2018-03-16 at 16:27 +0100, Rasmus Villemoes wrote: >> On 2018-03-15 11:00, Kieran Bingham wrote: >>> Simplify array iteration with a helper to iterate each entry in an array. >>> Utilise the existing ARRAY_SIZE macro to identify the length of the array >>> and pointer arithmetic to process each item as a for loop. > > I recall getting negative feedback on a similar proposal > a decade ago: > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2007/2/13/25 Thanks for the reference. I didn't know about this. Your suggestion at https://lkml.org/lkml/2007/2/13/25 looks remarkably similar to my implementation though :-D (Perhaps even a bit neater, I may have to incorporate some of your suggestion) > Not sure this is different. > I count three disagreements in that series. But I'm sure I have more positive responses already... (Though no 'official Acks' yet ...) How many ACKs do I need for this to be accepted ? or do the past-nack's have full veto? I still believe the use of an iterator in my case [0] makes *absolute sense* (thus it must make sense elsewhere) I'm not suggesting a full tree conversion here (though that has been suggested earlier in the thread) but the ability to add a convenience macro in a common location, so that it can be used when desired. In my instance, I have an array of structures which I want to iterate. I believe this make my code more readable. I have already had another vote to say that they thought the same. I'm certain that throughout the media tree there are a lot of use cases where arrays of structures define types which must be searched where this macro could also make sense. Do I need to start a poll to determine if this is a worthy pursuit? or am I to give up and stop in my tracks (I'm a bit too tenacious usually to give up - so someone 'high up' better make a clear statement saying ... just give up... otherwise I likely won't) Either way - I intend to add an equivalent macro to the UVC driver [1][2] (because as I said - I believe it makes sense), and I have the support of the maintainer there, so It seems a shame to have to duplicate the implementation in other use cases where this would make the code more friendly. /me awaits a NACK-FULL-STOP, or now fears if I'm about to be the cause of a flame war :-S [0] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/kbingham/rcar.git/commit/?h=kernel/array-iterator [1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/kbingham/rcar.git/commit/?h=kernel/array-iterator&id=3dece696e5b19d79c94f88c9df77482542d49a75 [2] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/kbingham/rcar.git/commit/?h=kernel/array-iterator&id=a31a5424a6577e14d46ce24ef0eff35de3e089bc -- Kieran
