[Intel-gfx] [PATCH] kernel.h: Add for_each_if()

[Randy Dunlap]

On 07/13/2018 04:37 PM, NeilBrown wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 11 2018, Andrew Morton wrote:
> 
>> On Wed, 11 Jul 2018 13:51:08 +0200 Daniel Vetter <daniel at ffwll.ch> wrote:
>>
>>> But I still have the situation that a bunch of maintainers acked this
>>> and Andrew Morton defacto nacked it, which I guess means I'll keep the
>>> macro in drm? The common way to go about this seems to be to just push
>>> the patch series with the ack in some pull request to Linus and ignore
>>> the people who raised questions, but not really my thing.
>>
>> Heh.
>>
>> But, am I wrong?  Code which uses regular kernel style doesn't have
>> these issues.  We shouldn't be enabling irregular style - we should be
>> making such sites more regular.  The fact that the compiler generates a
>> nice warning in some cases simply helps us with that.
> 
> I think you are wrong .... or at least, not completely correct.
> 
> I think it is perfectly acceptable in Linux to have code like:
> 
>   for (....)
>   	if (x)
>         	something();
>         else
>         	something_else();
> 
> Would you agree?  If not, then I'm the one who is wrong.  Otherwise....

coding-style.rst says:
Also, use braces when a loop contains more than a single simple statement:


> The problem is that for certain poorly written for_each_foo() macros,
> such as blkg_for_each_descendant_pre() (and several others identified in
> this patch series), writing
> 
>    blkg_for_each_descendant_pre(...)
>      	if (x)
>         	something();
>         else
>         	something_else();
> 
> will trigger a compiler warning.  This is inconsistent with the
> behaviour of a simple "for".
> So I do think that the macros should be fixed, and I don't think that
> sprinkling extra braces is an appropriate response.
> 
> I'm not personally convinced that writing
>    if_no_else(cond)
> is easier than just writing
>    if (!(cond)); else

agreed.

> in these macros, but I do think that the macros should be fixed and
> maybe this is the path-of-least-resistance to getting it done.

I'm not opposed to fixing some macros, but some of these macros are just
ease-of-less-typing shortcuts.  They don't improve readability at all;
they harm it.  (of course, that is just one opinion :)



-- 
~Randy