From: Bill Davidsen Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ext3, ext4: do_split() fix loop, with obvious unsigned wrap Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2008 09:25:46 -0500 Message-ID: <493696EA.5060900@tmr.com> References: <49343AD9.4020606@gmail.com> <20081202132441.GC16172@mit.edu> <49356B96.7070900@tmr.com> <20081202215758.GE20858@mit.edu> <4935C219.3070006@tmr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Theodore Tso , Bill Davidsen , roel kluin , adilger@sun.com, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from mail.tmr.com ([64.65.253.246]:52141 "EHLO partygirl.tmr.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750876AbYLCO0U (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Dec 2008 09:26:20 -0500 In-Reply-To: <4935C219.3070006@tmr.com> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Bill Davidsen wrote: > I seriously disagree on that, writing it as a for makes it totally > clear that the index initialization is part of the loop. > I know, looks funny, not the way we have always done it, not invented > here... > Just to be clear, I didn't mean that in any bad way, just that sometimes a new format, even if correct and unambiguous, looks strange to the eye and is not used just because it jars. I still think putting initialization for a loop in the start of the for is defensive programming, perhaps I've had too many bumblers inherit my code. -- Bill Davidsen "Woe unto the statesman who makes war without a reason that will still be valid when the war is over..." Otto von Bismark