On 20/04/18 10:45, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Fri, 2018-04-20 at 10:03 +0100, Colin King wrote:
>> From: Colin Ian King <colin.k...@canonical.com>
>>
>> In the case when the phy_mask is bitwise anded with the
>> phy_index bit is zero the continue statement currently jumps
>> to the next iteration of the while loop and phy_index is
>> never actually incremented, potentially causing an infinite
>> loop if phy_index is less than SCI_MAX_PHS. Fix this by
>> jumping to the increment of phy_index.
>>
>> [ The goto is used to save one more level of nesting that
>> makes the code far wider than 80 columns. ]
>
> what's wrong with replacing the while() with a for() that just works
> (removing the increment at the end). This is effectively open coding a
> for loop anyway, which is a pattern we wouldn't want replicated.
>
> James
>
Good point, V2 en-route.
