On 2/11/22 22:05, John Garry wrote: > On 11/02/2022 12:57, Damien Le Moal wrote: >>> I thought the current code was ok, as we init n_elem = 0 and we only >>> ever loop once. Am I missing something? >> It was not clear to me because of the loop. If the loop is done only >> once, why the loop in the first place ? >> >> Hold on... >> >> Oh ! It is a while(0)... OK, this too ugly to live. > > I didn't see the point of the while (0) loop at all. > > We need to do >> something about this. The continue at the beginning of the loop seems >> totally crazy as it may lead to the same task being reused, so multiple >> ->task_done() calls for the same task. Is that sane ? > > No. > > And I think continue in while(0) has has effect as break - it falls out. OK. So the loop is really useless, and confusing. Will clean that up to make the code cleaner and easier to understand. > > Thanks, > John > > -- Damien Le Moal Western Digital Research
