Hi Andy,
On 11/7/19 9:15 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 12:02:30PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
Infinite timeout loops are hard to read.
Why do you find infinite timeout loops hard to read? I personally find
that emphasizing the common case to be more redable. An ideal loop for
me would look like:
do {
do_stuff();
if (timeout) {
complain();
break()
}
} while (what_we_expect_has_not_happened());
Cheers,
Alex
Refactor it to plausible 'do {} while ()'.
Note, the supplied timeout can't be negative for current use,
though if it's not dividable to 10, we may go below 0,
that's why type of the parameter is int. And thus, we may move
the check to the loop condition.
No functional changes implied.
Bjorn, any comment on this? It would be nice to have in since contributors are
unable to know which style to use. This patch makes similar places follow the
same style.
Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/pci/hotplug/pciehp_hpc.c | 6 ++----
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/pci/hotplug/pciehp_hpc.c b/drivers/pci/hotplug/pciehp_hpc.c
index 1a522c1c4177..e397c78ca232 100644
--- a/drivers/pci/hotplug/pciehp_hpc.c
+++ b/drivers/pci/hotplug/pciehp_hpc.c
@@ -68,7 +68,7 @@ static int pcie_poll_cmd(struct controller *ctrl, int timeout)
struct pci_dev *pdev = ctrl_dev(ctrl);
u16 slot_status;
- while (true) {
+ do {
pcie_capability_read_word(pdev, PCI_EXP_SLTSTA, &slot_status);
if (slot_status == (u16) ~0) {
ctrl_info(ctrl, "%s: no response from device\n",
@@ -81,11 +81,9 @@ static int pcie_poll_cmd(struct controller *ctrl, int timeout)
PCI_EXP_SLTSTA_CC);
return 1;
}
- if (timeout < 0)
- break;
msleep(10);
timeout -= 10;
- }
+ } while (timeout > 0);
return 0; /* timeout */
}
--
2.23.0
