else-if is more readable than continue here.
Signed-off-by: Jinlong Chen <[email protected]>
---
block/elevator.c | 6 ++----
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/block/elevator.c b/block/elevator.c
index 308bee253564..ffa750976d25 100644
--- a/block/elevator.c
+++ b/block/elevator.c
@@ -776,11 +776,9 @@ ssize_t elv_iosched_show(struct request_queue *q, char *name)
spin_lock(&elv_list_lock);
list_for_each_entry(e, &elv_list, list) {
- if (e == cur) {
+ if (e == cur)
len += sprintf(name+len, "[%s] ", cur->elevator_name);
- continue;
- }
- if (elv_support_features(q, e))
+ else if (elv_support_features(q, e))
len += sprintf(name+len, "%s ", e->elevator_name);
}
spin_unlock(&elv_list_lock);
--
2.34.1
On Fri, Nov 25, 2022 at 11:53:12PM +0800, Jinlong Chen wrote:
> list_for_each_entry(e, &elv_list, list) {
> - if (e == cur) {
> + if (e == cur)
> len += sprintf(name+len, "[%s] ", cur->elevator_name);
> - continue;
> - }
> - if (elv_support_features(q, e))
> + else if (elv_support_features(q, e))
> len += sprintf(name+len, "%s ", e->elevator_name);
Looks good. But to make this even more obvious I'd also switch to
pinting e->elevator_name for the cur case instead of cur.
> > list_for_each_entry(e, &elv_list, list) {
> > - if (e == cur) {
> > + if (e == cur)
> > len += sprintf(name+len, "[%s] ", cur->elevator_name);
> > - continue;
> > - }
> > - if (elv_support_features(q, e))
> > + else if (elv_support_features(q, e))
> > len += sprintf(name+len, "%s ", e->elevator_name);
>
> Looks good. But to make this even more obvious I'd also switch to
> pinting e->elevator_name for the cur case instead of cur.
That's truely better. I'll send a v2 soon.
Thanks!
Jinlong Chen