On 20/04/18 10:45, James Bottomley wrote: > On Fri, 2018-04-20 at 10:03 +0100, Colin King wrote: >> From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> >> In the case when the phy_mask is bitwise anded with the >> phy_index bit is zero the continue statement currently jumps >> to the next iteration of the while loop and phy_index is >> never actually incremented, potentially causing an infinite >> loop if phy_index is less than SCI_MAX_PHS. Fix this by >> jumping to the increment of phy_index. >> >> [ The goto is used to save one more level of nesting that >> makes the code far wider than 80 columns. ] > > what's wrong with replacing the while() with a for() that just works > (removing the increment at the end). This is effectively open coding a > for loop anyway, which is a pattern we wouldn't want replicated. > > James > Good point, V2 en-route.
