From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
To: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@suse.de>,
David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>,
intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v1 1/1] drm/i915/selftests: Replace too verbose for-loop with simpler while
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2022 20:58:32 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Ygv32CptVknidyP3@smile.fi.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87o83859x2.fsf@intel.com>
On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 07:14:49PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Feb 2022, Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > It's hard to parse for-loop which has some magic calculations inside.
> > Much cleaner to use while-loop directly.
>
> I assume you're trying to prove a point following our recent
> for-vs-while loop discussion. I really can't think of any other reason
> you'd end up looking at this file or this loop.
>
> With the change, the loop indeed becomes simpler, but it also runs one
> iteration further than the original. Whoops.
Yeah, sorry for that, the initial condition should be d = depth - 1,
of course.
> It's a selftest. The loop's been there for five years. What are we
> trying to achieve here? So we disagree on loops, fine. Perhaps this is
> not the best use of either of our time? Please just let the for loops in
> i915 be.
Yes, I'm pretty much was sure that no-one will go and apply this anyway
(so I haven't paid too much attention), but to prove my point in the
certain discussion.
And yes, the point is for the new code, I'm not going to change existing
suboptimal and too hard to read for-loops, it will consume my time later
when I will try to understand the code.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-02-15 18:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-02-15 16:32 [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v1 1/1] drm/i915/selftests: Replace too verbose for-loop with simpler while Andy Shevchenko
2022-02-15 17:14 ` Jani Nikula
2022-02-15 18:58 ` Andy Shevchenko [this message]
2022-02-16 8:55 ` Jani Nikula
2022-02-16 9:02 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2022-02-16 23:28 ` [Intel-gfx] ✓ Fi.CI.BAT: success for series starting with [v1,1/1] " Patchwork
2022-02-17 7:56 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.IGT: failure " Patchwork
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=Ygv32CptVknidyP3@smile.fi.intel.com \
--to=andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com \
--cc=airlied@linux.ie \
--cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=geert@linux-m68k.org \
--cc=intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=jani.nikula@linux.intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tzimmermann@suse.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox