From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261604AbVCORiE (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Mar 2005 12:38:04 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261656AbVCORgB (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Mar 2005 12:36:01 -0500 Received: from anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net ([194.217.242.89]:39694 "EHLO anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261543AbVCORe0 (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Mar 2005 12:34:26 -0500 Message-ID: <42370B14.50608@lougher.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 16:19:32 +0000 From: Phillip Lougher User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.8 (X11/20041012) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Matt Mackall CC: Paul Jackson , Nick Piggin , akpm@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, greg@kroah.com Subject: Re: [PATCH][1/2] SquashFS References: <4235BAC0.6020001@lougher.demon.co.uk> <20050315003802.GH3163@waste.org> <42363EAB.3050603@yahoo.com.au> <20050315004759.473f6a0b.pj@engr.sgi.com> <42370442.7020401@lougher.demon.co.uk> <20050315172724.GO32638@waste.org> In-Reply-To: <20050315172724.GO32638@waste.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.86.1.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Matt Mackall wrote: > On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 03:50:26PM +0000, Phillip Lougher wrote: > >>Paul Jackson wrote: >> >>>In the overall kernel (Linus's bk tree) I count: >>> >>> 733 lines matching 'for *( *; *; *)' >>> 718 lines matching 'while *( *1 *)' >>> >>>In the kernel/*.c files, I count 15 of the 'for(;;)' style and 1 of the >>>'while(1)' style. >>> >>>Certainly the 'for(;;)' style is acceptable, and even slightly to >>>substantially dominant, depending on which piece of code you're in. >>> >> >>I prefer the 'while' style, and only used 'for' because that's what I >>thought the kernel used. >> >>If no-one objects I'll change it back to while... >> >>Shouldn't issues like this be in the coding style document? > > > This particular point is rather trivial. Do whatever suits you. > It's a shame the 'rather trivial' issue got picked up in the first place then :-) I didn't raise the issue.