On 11.10.24 12:49, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
On Fri, Oct 11, 2024 at 09:06:37AM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote:
David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
On 10.10.24 08:55, Huang Ying wrote:
...
for ((_p) = (_root)->child; (_p); (_p) = next_resource_XXX(_root, _p))
Yes. This can improve code readability.
A possible issue is that "_root" will be evaluated twice in above macro
definition. IMO, this should be avoided.
Ideally, yes. But how many for_each type of macros you see that really try hard
to achieve that? I believe we shouldn't worry right now about this and rely on
the fact that root is the given variable. Or do you have an example of what you
suggested in the other reply, i.e. where it's an evaluation of the heavy call?
Do you have some idea about
how to do that? Something like below?
#define for_each_resource_XXX(_root, _p) \
for (typeof(_root) __root = (_root), __p = (_p) = (__root)->child; \
__p && (_p); (_p) = next_resource_XXX(__root, _p))
This is a bit ugly :-( I would avoid ugliness as long as we have no problem to
solve (see above).
Fully agreed, I didn't quite understand the concern about "evaluation"
at first. If it's just reading a variable twice, it doesn't matter at
all right now.
--
Cheers,
David / dhildenb
