On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 1:19 PM Park, Aiden aiden.park@intel.com wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: Andy Shevchenko [mailto:andy.shevchenko@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 2, 2019 4:51 PM To: Park, Aiden aiden.park@intel.com Cc: Bin Meng bmeng.cn@gmail.com; U-Boot Mailing List <u- boot@lists.denx.de>; Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 4/9] x86: slimbootloader: Add memory configuration On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 10:49 AM Andy Shevchenko andy.shevchenko@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 10:03 AM Park, Aiden aiden.park@intel.com
wrote:
+#define for_each_memory_map_entry_reversed(iter, entries) \
for (iter = entries->count - 1; iter >= 0; iter--) \if (entries->entry[iter].type == E820_RAM)It seems you missed my answer to Bin. This is simple incorrect. Checkpatch sometimes is wrong.
Let me elaborate why.
The idea of having
if (foo) {} else
pattern is to avoid weirndess like
for_each_...() { ... } else { ...WTF!.. }
Sorry for missing your comment. I understand '{} else' is better way. It looks checkpatch issue is bigger scope than this one. What about this in this series?
#define for_each_if(condition) if (!(condition)) {} else #define for_each_memory_map_entry_reversed(iter, entries) \ for (iter = entries->count - 1; iter >= 0; iter--) \ for_each_if(entries->entry[iter].type == E820_RAM)
tricky, but checkpatch does not report ERROR.
Fine for me. If Bin is okay with it, it will be good then.