Re: [PATCH][1/2] SquashFS

[jerome lacoste <jerome.lacoste@gmail.com>]

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 17:50:02 -0800, Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net> wrote:
> >>>>> "PJ" == Paul Jackson <pj@engr.sgi.com> writes:
> 
> PJ> There is not a concensus (nor a King Penguin dictate) between the
> PJ> "while(1)" and "for(;;)" style to document.
> 
> FWIW, linux-0.01 has four uses of "while (1)" and two uses of
> "for (;;)" ;-).
> 
> ./fs/inode.c:   while (1) {
> ./fs/namei.c:   while (1) {
> ./fs/namei.c:   while (1) {
> ./kernel/sched.c:       while (1) {
> 
> ./init/main.c:  for(;;) pause();
> ./kernel/panic.c:       for(;;);
> 
> What is interesting here is that the King Penguin used these two
> constructs with consistency.  The "while (1)" form was used with
> normal exit routes with "if (...) break" inside; while the
> "for(;;)" form was used only in unusual "the thread of control
> should get stuck here forever" cases.
> 
> So, Phillip's decision to go back to his original while(1) style
> seems to be in line with the style used in the original Linux
> kernel ;-).

After the Pinguin janitors, now comes the Pinguin archeologists.

This starts to be lemmingesque :)

J