On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 1:05 AM, Andrew Morton akpm@linux-foundation.org wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jul 2018 13:51:08 +0200 Daniel Vetter daniel@ffwll.ch wrote:
But I still have the situation that a bunch of maintainers acked this and Andrew Morton defacto nacked it, which I guess means I'll keep the macro in drm? The common way to go about this seems to be to just push the patch series with the ack in some pull request to Linus and ignore the people who raised questions, but not really my thing.
Heh.
But, am I wrong? Code which uses regular kernel style doesn't have these issues. We shouldn't be enabling irregular style - we should be making such sites more regular. The fact that the compiler generates a nice warning in some cases simply helps us with that.
Yes liberal sprinkling of {} per coding style fixes it too. But given that the if (!cond) ; else pattern is fairly common even outside of drm it seems like not just graphics people think that little bit of added robustness in iterator macros is worth it. Only reason I bothered with this is because I've seen another open-coded version of this pattern fly by.
Anyway I'm going on vacations for a few weeks now. Andy/Yisheng, I guess if you want this it's up to you to haggle for a consensus around this. If that doesn't happen I'm happy to keep it in drm headers. -Daniel