On Thu, 31 May 2007 13:20:48 +0200 Pierre Ossman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >
(top-posting reversed) > Pierre Ossman wrote: > > Andrew Morton wrote: > >> Whatever. I think you can work it out ;) > >> > >> > > > > Bare with me, I just woke up ;) > > > >> while (driver_probe_done() || (ROOT_DEV = name_to_dev_t(...)) == 0) > >> > >> perhaps? > >> > >> The loop-which-sleeps within a loop-which-sleeps seems poorly thought out? > >> > > > > I'd say a matter of taste. I'm not a big fan och cramming things into > > the while() clause. > > > > The idea with the double loops was to keep this thread asleep when we > > could detect meaningful work elsewhere in the kernel. You could just > > remove the inner-most loop if it offends you. :) > > > > What was the verdict here? Were you satisfied with this or do you need a > change? I was kinda hoing to see version #2 with that funny loop cleaned up a bit? - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
