On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 1:19 PM Park, Aiden <[email protected]> wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Andy Shevchenko [mailto:[email protected]]
> > Sent: Friday, August 2, 2019 4:51 PM
> > To: Park, Aiden <[email protected]>
> > Cc: Bin Meng <[email protected]>; U-Boot Mailing List <u-
> > [email protected]>; Simon Glass <[email protected]>
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 4/9] x86: slimbootloader: Add memory
> > configuration
> > On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 10:49 AM Andy Shevchenko
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 10:03 AM Park, Aiden <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> > > > +#define for_each_memory_map_entry_reversed(iter, entries) \
> > > > + for (iter = entries->count - 1; iter >= 0; iter--) \
> > > > + if (entries->entry[iter].type == E820_RAM)
> > > > +
> > >
> > > It seems you missed my answer to Bin.
> > > This is simple incorrect. Checkpatch sometimes is wrong.
> >
> > Let me elaborate why.
> >
> > The idea of having
> >
> > if (foo) {} else
> >
> > pattern is to avoid weirndess like
> >
> > for_each_...() {
> > ...
> > } else {
> > ...WTF!..
> > }
> >
> Sorry for missing your comment. I understand '{} else' is better way.
> It looks checkpatch issue is bigger scope than this one.
> What about this in this series?
>
> #define for_each_if(condition) if (!(condition)) {} else
> #define for_each_memory_map_entry_reversed(iter, entries) \
> for (iter = entries->count - 1; iter >= 0; iter--) \
> for_each_if(entries->entry[iter].type == E820_RAM)
>
> tricky, but checkpatch does not report ERROR.
Fine for me. If Bin is okay with it, it will be good then.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
