On 06/30/2011 10:37 AM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 04:46:41PM -0700, Franky Lin wrote:
#define FOREACH_BSS(wlc, idx, cfg) \
- for (idx = 0; (int) idx< WLC_MAXBSSCFG; idx++) \
- if ((cfg = (wlc)->bsscfg[idx]))
+ for (idx = 0, cfg = (wlc)->bsscfg[idx]; \
+ idx< WLC_MAXBSSCFG; cfg = (wlc)->bsscfg[++idx]) \
+ if (cfg)
That's pretty ugly. Better to leave the original in and ignore the
checkpatch warning. Or maybe do something like this:
for (idx = 0; (int) idx< WLC_MAXBSSCFG; idx++) { \
cfg = (wlc)->bsscfg[idx]; \
if (!cfg) \
continue; \
Then #define END_FOREACH_BSS() }
Hi Dan,
I agree this is not the nicest solution. It was a checkpatch error so we
felt an urge to fix it. A warning would have been easier to ignore. I
will have a look and see whether the patch can be dropped without
issues. Your feedback is noted so I will look for a better iteration
solution to replace this.
Gr. AvS
--
Almost nobody dances sober, unless they happen to be insane.
-- H.P. Lovecraft --
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
