Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, > > On 12/01/2009 02:40 PM, Cong Wang wrote: >>> So, I don't know. The first iteration only loop looks a bit unusual >>> for sure but it isn't something conceptually convoluted. >> Now this seems to be better. So with this change, we can do: >> >> pcpu_first_pop_region(chunk, rs, re, start, end); >> if (rs < re && ...) >> return; >> >> Right? > > Yeap, but is that any better? Passing lvalue loop parameters to loop > constructs is customary. For almost all other cases, it's not, so > > pcpu_first_pop_region(chunk, &rs, &re, start, end) > > would be better but then we have two similar looking interfaces which > take different types of parameters. Also, you probably can drop rs < > re test there but for me it just seems easier to simply check the > first iteration. If you think it's something worth changing and it > looks better afterwards, please send a patch. > What do you think about the patch below? Untested. ----------- Signed-off-by: WANG Cong