On Mon, May 09, 2016 at 04:45:38PM -0400, Jes Sorensen wrote: > NeilBrown <nfbrown@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > On Mon, May 09 2016, Shaohua Li wrote: > > > >> On Mon, May 09, 2016 at 09:33:39AM +1000, Eyal Lebedinsky wrote: > >>> I do not see how this change makes it clearer. The original form is > >>> actually a very common and clear > >>> scan an array in reverse order > >> > >> People always have different opinions for this stuff. When I read '--j' or > >> 'j--', I always think extra time what the value of j is. So for me the change > >> actually makes the code more readable :) > > > > If the goal is to make the code more readable, you may as well make it: > > > > for (j = 0; i < ->raid_disk; j++) > > > > That will be clearer to most people than the current code, which I don't > > think is very much clearer than the original (maybe a little bit). > > I agree - I had to read the updated version multiple times to convince > myself it was doing the same thing as the original. ok, droped the patch. If Tiezhu Yang is willing to post a new one as neil suggested, I'll still apply. To be honest I hate the 'j--' and check 'j' stuff. Thanks, Shaohua -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
