> >> int idx = 0;
> >> int start = cb->args[0];
> >> struct cfg80211_registered_device *dev;
> >>
> >> mutex_lock(&cfg80211_drv_mutex);
> >> list_for_each_entry(dev, &cfg80211_drv_list, list) {
> >> - if (++idx < start)
> >> + if (++idx <= start)
> >> continue;
> >> if (nl80211_send_wiphy(skb, NETLINK_CB(cb->skb).pid,
> >> cb->nlh->nlmsg_seq, NLM_F_MULTI,
> >> - dev) < 0)
> >> + dev) < 0) {
> >> + idx--;
> >> break;
> >> + }
> >
> > I see much of the problem stemming from incrementing 'idx' at the
> > beginning of the loop, can't we just move it to the end?
>
> idx still needs to be incremented in the 'continue' case, so that
> alone wouldn't help. I'm not sure if there is a way to make this look
> more intuitive?
Good point. The only ways I can come up with add further to the already
quite deep indentation:
list_for_each_entry(...) {
if (idx > start)
if (nl80211_send_wiphy(...) < 0)
break;
idx++;
}
or hide the call into an if ():
list_for_each_entry(...) {
if (idx > start && nl80211_send_wiphy(...))
break;
idx++;
}
Not sure. I guess the code isn't touched often so your patch is fine.
johannes
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
