Re: [PATCH v3 3/4] vhost-user: introduce vhost-user API

[David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1605 bytes --]

On Mon, Aug 26, 2024 at 09:55:42AM +0200, Stefano Brivio wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Aug 2024 15:27:59 +1000
> David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au> wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, Aug 23, 2024 at 12:14:22AM +0200, Stefano Brivio wrote:
> > > On Thu, 15 Aug 2024 17:50:22 +0200
> > > Laurent Vivier <lvivier@redhat.com> wrote:  
> > [snip]
> > 
> > > > +	if (sz_payload) {
> > > > +		do {
> > > > +			ret = recv(conn_fd, &vmsg->payload, sz_payload, 0);
> > > > +		} while (ret < 0 && (errno == EINTR || errno == EAGAIN));  
> > > 
> > > No need for curly brackets, it's a one-line statement.  
> > 
> > Unlike if, while or for, I'm pretty sure the braces are mandatory for
> > do {} while.
> 
> What do you mean by mandatory? This is not covered in any special way
> by the kernel coding style documentation, and that statement is not a
> compound statement:
> 
> $ cat dowhile.c
> #include <stdio.h>
> 
> int main()
> {
>     int a = 3;
> 
>     do
>         printf("%i\n", a--);
>     while (a);

Huh.  Ok, I'm just wrong.

For some reason I thought the braces were required by C for do while.

> 
>     return 0;
> }
> $ gcc -Wall -Wextra -pedantic -std=c89 -o dowhile dowhile.c 
> $ ./dowhile 
> 3
> 2
> 1
> 
> but sure, if you suggest that curly brackets improve clarity here, I
> have nothing against them.

Not what I was getting at, but I do think that's true.

-- 
David Gibson (he or they)	| I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au	| minimalist, thank you, not the other way
				| around.
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]