On Saturday 29 June 2013 07:10, David Miller wrote:
From: Or Gerlitz ogerl...@mellanox.com
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 17:22:12 +0300
+ for (--i; i = 0; --i) {
Please, i-- is more canonical in for() loops.
+ for (--i; i = 0; --i) {
Likewise.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send
From: Jack Morgenstein ja...@dev.mellanox.co.il
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2013 14:44:54 +0300
Thus, the for loop could read:
for (--i; i = 0; i--) {
However, my own personal opinion is that this is a bit confusing.
I would prefer to leave these lines as they are.
Is that OK with you?
From: Jack Morgenstein ja...@dev.mellanox.co.il
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2013 14:44:54 +0300
On Saturday 29 June 2013 07:10, David Miller wrote:
From: Or Gerlitz ogerl...@mellanox.com
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 17:22:12 +0300
+ for (--i; i = 0; --i) {
Please, i-- is more canonical in for() loops.
From: Or Gerlitz ogerl...@mellanox.com
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 17:22:12 +0300
+ for (--i; i = 0; --i) {
Please, i-- is more canonical in for() loops.
+ for (--i; i = 0; --i) {
Likewise.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-rdma in
the body of a message to
