On 12/27/23 09:48, Warner Losh wrote:
On Wed, Dec 27, 2023 at 8:31 AM Alexey Dokuchaev <da...@freebsd.org
<mailto:da...@freebsd.org>> wrote:
On Wed, Dec 27, 2023 at 04:49:20PM +0200, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 27, 2023 at 06:08:08AM +0000, Kyle Evans wrote:
> > commit 6ac7c9f06ae9b7ef070c1f8a57dcc52be4dd45b7
> >
> > daemon: remove redundant parameter from listen_child()
> >
> > state already contains pipe fd
> > ...
> > @@ -448,9 +448,7 @@ daemon_eventloop(struct daemon_state *state)
> > /* child is dead, read all
until EOF */
> > state->pid = -1;
> > state->mode = MODE_NOCHILD;
> > - while
(listen_child(state->pipe_fd[0],
> > - state))
> > - ;
> > + while (listen_child(state));
>
> This line is the style regression.
We've seen this before and I reckon these regressions would keep
happening
when semicolon is put on the new line by itself alone. This would
be less
likely to happen and makes the intention more obvious to say
``continue;''.
fwiw, that was the recommendation of the 'old unix hands' on USENET
in the mid 80s. It made the intention clear. I was told, but never
encountered,
that some linting tools will warn about the above style but not while
(foo) continue;
and so that's been my personal style ever since. I've debugged lots of
code that
used this style, and it's a bugger to sort out if the indentation is
correct and the ;
is intended at the end of the line, or if it was intended...
Warner
Both of these fixed in e064557916a905d0add20c4012cf3678131c11e7, thanks.
I also like the more explicit form here.
