Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20180709160342.GA2476@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20180709083650.23549-1-daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
 <20180709083650.23549-11-daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch> <20180709103656.GH2476@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <CAKMK7uEr9PJ0mex5CWdws55OwaLuHCbLJ5vP8KA4ZQXdAVOTYQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180709151258.GV2476@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20180709155204.GD3008@phenom.ffwll.local>
 <20180709160342.GA2476@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
From:   Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
Date:   Mon, 9 Jul 2018 18:06:45 +0200
Message-ID: <CAKMK7uH2zUXCQw3DupDHHYJDL4WW_c_8bFDTA7TJs86CZsNNUw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/12] sched: use for_each_if in topology.h
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        DRI Development <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
        Intel Graphics Development <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@intel.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 6:03 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 05:52:04PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>> for_each_something(foo)
>>       if (foo->bla)
>>               call_bla(foo);
>>       else
>>               call_default(foo);
>>
>> Totally contrived, but this complains. Liberally sprinkling {} also shuts
>> up the compiler, but it's a bit confusing given that a plain for {;;} is
>> totally fine. And it's confusing since at first glance the compiler
>> complaining about nested if and ambigous else doesn't make sense since
>> clearly there's only 1 if there.
>
> Ah, so the pattern the compiler tries to warn about is:
>
>         if (foo)
>                 if (bar)
>                         /* stmts1 */
>                 else
>                         /* stmts2 *
>
> Because it might not be immediately obvious with which if the else goes.
> Which is fair enough I suppose.

Yup. I'll augment the commit message of patch 1 to include this as
example, and why it's confusing in context of a for_each_foo macro
containing an if().

> OK, ACK.

Thanks, Daniel
-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
+41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch