[PATCH] loop cleanup in lib/prio_tree.c

[PATCH] loop cleanup in lib/prio_tree.c

[Dmitri Vorobiev]

Hi Rajesh,

It seems that using a goto-based construct in the prio_tree_next() is not justified, and using the while()-based loop is better from the coding style POV.

The patch below replaces the goto-based loop by a while-based one. However, if I overlooked something and using the goto operator in this routine is necessary, I would be grateful to you if you could explain why it is necessary.

Thanks.

Signed-off-by Dmitri Vorobiev <dmitri.vorobiev@gmail.com>
---
diff --git a/lib/prio_tree.c b/lib/prio_tree.c
index ccfd850..d56880f 100644
--- a/lib/prio_tree.c
+++ b/lib/prio_tree.c
@@ -461,24 +461,23 @@ struct prio_tree_node *prio_tree_next(st
 	if (iter->cur == NULL)
 		return prio_tree_first(iter);
 
-repeat:
-	while (prio_tree_left(iter, &r_index, &h_index))
-		if (overlap(iter, r_index, h_index))
-			return iter->cur;
-
-	while (!prio_tree_right(iter, &r_index, &h_index)) {
-	    	while (!prio_tree_root(iter->cur) &&
-				iter->cur->parent->right == iter->cur)
-			prio_tree_parent(iter);
+	while (1) {
+		while (prio_tree_left(iter, &r_index, &h_index))
+			if (overlap(iter, r_index, h_index))
+				return iter->cur;
 
-		if (prio_tree_root(iter->cur))
-			return NULL;
+		while (!prio_tree_right(iter, &r_index, &h_index)) {
+			while (!prio_tree_root(iter->cur) &&
+					iter->cur->parent->right == iter->cur)
+				prio_tree_parent(iter);
 
-		prio_tree_parent(iter);
-	}
+			if (prio_tree_root(iter->cur))
+				return NULL;
 
-	if (overlap(iter, r_index, h_index))
-		return iter->cur;
+			prio_tree_parent(iter);
+		}
 
-	goto repeat;
+		if (overlap(iter, r_index, h_index))
+			return iter->cur;
+	}
 }