Hi
On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 7:00 PM, Jani Nikula
<jani.nikula at linux.intel.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2015, Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst at linux.intel.com>
> wrote:
>> +#define drm_for_each_encoder_mask(encoder, dev, encoder_mask) \
>> + list_for_each_entry((encoder), &(dev)->mode_config.encoder_list, head)
>> \
>> + if ((encoder_mask) & (1 << drm_encoder_index(encoder)))
>
> How about
>
> if (!((encoder_mask) & (1 << drm_encoder_index(encoder)))); else
>
> to avoid dangling else problems?
YES! Please use inverted conditions in macros. Otherwise, looks good to me.
But I think an empty block "{ }" is preferable over the empty
statement. llvm tends to warn about empty statements.
Thanks
David
