Hi Rajesh,
It seems that using a goto-based construct in the prio_tree_next() is not
justified, and using the while()-based loop is better from the coding style POV.
The patch below replaces the goto-based loop by a while-based one. However, if
I overlooked something and using the goto operator in this routine is
necessary, I would be grateful to you if you could explain why it is necessary.
Thanks.
Signed-off-by Dmitri Vorobiev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
diff --git a/lib/prio_tree.c b/lib/prio_tree.c
index ccfd850..d56880f 100644
--- a/lib/prio_tree.c
+++ b/lib/prio_tree.c
@@ -461,24 +461,23 @@ struct prio_tree_node *prio_tree_next(st
if (iter->cur == NULL)
return prio_tree_first(iter);
-repeat:
- while (prio_tree_left(iter, &r_index, &h_index))
- if (overlap(iter, r_index, h_index))
- return iter->cur;
-
- while (!prio_tree_right(iter, &r_index, &h_index)) {
- while (!prio_tree_root(iter->cur) &&
- iter->cur->parent->right == iter->cur)
- prio_tree_parent(iter);
+ while (1) {
+ while (prio_tree_left(iter, &r_index, &h_index))
+ if (overlap(iter, r_index, h_index))
+ return iter->cur;
- if (prio_tree_root(iter->cur))
- return NULL;
+ while (!prio_tree_right(iter, &r_index, &h_index)) {
+ while (!prio_tree_root(iter->cur) &&
+ iter->cur->parent->right == iter->cur)
+ prio_tree_parent(iter);
- prio_tree_parent(iter);
- }
+ if (prio_tree_root(iter->cur))
+ return NULL;
- if (overlap(iter, r_index, h_index))
- return iter->cur;
+ prio_tree_parent(iter);
+ }
- goto repeat;
+ if (overlap(iter, r_index, h_index))
+ return iter->cur;
+ }
}
-
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/
