From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: [PATCH 36/51] writeback: implement bdi_for_each_wb() Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2015 13:06:51 -0400 Message-ID: <20150703170651.GE5273@mtj.duckdns.org> References: <1432329245-5844-1-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org> <1432329245-5844-37-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org> <20150701072757.GW7252@quack.suse.cz> <20150702022226.GH26440@mtj.duckdns.org> <20150703122627.GK23329@quack.suse.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: axboe@kernel.dk, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, hch@infradead.org, hannes@cmpxchg.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, vgoyal@redhat.com, lizefan@huawei.com, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, mhocko@suse.cz, clm@fb.com, fengguang.wu@intel.com, david@fromorbit.com, gthelen@google.com, khlebnikov@yandex-team.ru To: Jan Kara Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150703122627.GK23329@quack.suse.cz> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jul 03, 2015 at 02:26:27PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote: > That's a good point. Thanks for explanation. Maybe add a comment like: > /* > * We use use this seemingly complicated 'for' loop so that 'break' and > * 'continue' continue to work as expected. > */ This kinda feel superflous for me. This is something true for all iteration wrappers which falls within the area of well-established convention, I think. If it's doing something weird like combining if-else clause to do post-conditional processing, sure, but this is really kinda standard. Thanks. -- tejun