On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 01:13:41PM +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:
quoted text
> Jarek Poplawski a écrit :
> > On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 08:14:28AM +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> >> +					for (aux = rt_hash_table[i].chain;;) {
> >> +						if (aux == rth) {
> >> +							length += ONE;
> >> +							break;
> >> +						}
> >> +						if (compare_hash_inputs(&aux->fl, &rth->fl))
> >> +							break;
> >> +						aux = aux->u.dst.rt_next;
> >> +					}
> > 
> > Very "interesting" for() usage, but isn't it more readable like this?:
> > 
> > 					aux = rt_hash_table[i].chain;
> > 					while (aux != rth) {
> > 						if (compare_hash_inputs(&aux->fl, &rth->fl))
> > 							break;
> > 						aux = aux->u.dst.rt_next;
> > 					}
> 
> well, this test is done two times, this is the difference...

I know, but I guess this is used quite often. And probably it's not
very hard optimization for a compiler (while - else). As a matter of
fact even this would confuse me less here:
					aux = rt_hash_table[i].chain;
					for (;;) {

But of course, it's a matter of taste, so no big deal.

Jarek P.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html