From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/12] sched: use for_each_if in topology.h
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2018 18:03:42 +0200
Message-ID: <20180709160342.GA2476@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20180709083650.23549-1-daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
 <20180709083650.23549-11-daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
 <20180709103656.GH2476@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <CAKMK7uEr9PJ0mex5CWdws55OwaLuHCbLJ5vP8KA4ZQXdAVOTYQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180709151258.GV2476@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20180709155204.GD3008@phenom.ffwll.local>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20180709155204.GD3008@phenom.ffwll.local>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, DRI Development <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>, Intel Graphics Development <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>, Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@intel.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org

On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 05:52:04PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> for_each_something(foo)
> 	if (foo->bla)
> 		call_bla(foo);
> 	else
> 		call_default(foo);
> 
> Totally contrived, but this complains. Liberally sprinkling {} also shuts
> up the compiler, but it's a bit confusing given that a plain for {;;} is
> totally fine. And it's confusing since at first glance the compiler
> complaining about nested if and ambigous else doesn't make sense since
> clearly there's only 1 if there.

Ah, so the pattern the compiler tries to warn about is:

	if (foo)
		if (bar)
			/* stmts1 */
		else
			/* stmts2 *

Because it might not be immediately obvious with which if the else goes.
Which is fair enough I suppose.

OK, ACK.