On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 17:50:02 -0800, Junio C Hamano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>>> "PJ" == Paul Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> PJ> There is not a concensus (nor a King Penguin dictate) between the
> PJ> "while(1)" and "for(;;)" style to document.
>
> FWIW, linux-0.01 has four uses of "while (1)" and two uses of
> "for (;;)" ;-).
>
> ./fs/inode.c: while (1) {
> ./fs/namei.c: while (1) {
> ./fs/namei.c: while (1) {
> ./kernel/sched.c: while (1) {
>
> ./init/main.c: for(;;) pause();
> ./kernel/panic.c: for(;;);
>
> What is interesting here is that the King Penguin used these two
> constructs with consistency. The "while (1)" form was used with
> normal exit routes with "if (...) break" inside; while the
> "for(;;)" form was used only in unusual "the thread of control
> should get stuck here forever" cases.
>
> So, Phillip's decision to go back to his original while(1) style
> seems to be in line with the style used in the original Linux
> kernel ;-).
After the Pinguin janitors, now comes the Pinguin archeologists.
This starts to be lemmingesque :)
J
-
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/
