Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | Date | Fri, 21 Jul 2023 14:28:36 +0300 | From | Andy Shevchenko <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v1 3/8] iio: core: Switch to krealloc_array() |
| |
On Fri, Jul 21, 2023 at 12:53:53PM +0200, Nuno Sá wrote: > On Fri, 2023-07-21 at 13:14 +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 21, 2023 at 09:59:37AM +0200, Nuno Sá wrote: > > > On Thu, 2023-07-20 at 23:53 +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
...
> > > > + struct attribute **attrs, **attr, *clk = NULL; > > > > struct iio_dev_attr *p; > > > > - struct attribute **attr, *clk = NULL; > > > > > > > > /* First count elements in any existing group */ > > > > - if (indio_dev->info->attrs) { > > > > - attr = indio_dev->info->attrs->attrs; > > > > - while (*attr++ != NULL) > > > > + attrs = indio_dev->info->attrs ? indio_dev->info->attrs->attrs : > > > > NULL; > > > > + if (attrs) { > > > > + for (attr = attrs; *attr; attr++) > > > > attrcount_orig++; > > > > > not really related with the change... maybe just mention it in the commit? > > > > Hmm... It's related to make krealloc_array() to work as expected. > > > > Hmm, I think it's arguable :). while() -> for() it's not really needed unless > I'm missing something. You could even initialize 'attrs' to NULL at declaration > and keep the above diff minimum.
I'm not a fan of the assignments in the declarations when it potentially can be disrupted by a chunk of code and reading the code itself may be harder due to an interruption for checking the initial value. Hence, having
+ attr = attrs; while (... != NULL)
seems enough to be replaced with one liner for-loop.
> That said, I actually prefer this style (even though some people don't like much > the ternary operator).
Thanks!
> > > > }
-- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |