On Friday 25 July 2008, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 25 Jul 2008, Ben Dooks wrote:
> > 
> > personally, i would much prefer to see the loop being less evil
> > like:
> > 
> > 	for (p = s; p < end; p += 2)
> > 		be16_to_cpus((u16 *)p);
> 
> Well, in this case, the code actually depends on 'p' being back at the 
> start of the buffer by the end of it all, so it would need some more 
> changes than that. 
> 
> But yes, I applied David's patch, but I _also_ suspect that we would be 
> better off without code that does horrid things like casts and assignments 
> inside the function arguments.
> 
> So it would be nice to re-code that loop to be more readable. But due to 
> the reliance of 'p' being 's' after the loop, the minimal patch would be 
> something like the appended.
> 
> Bartlomiej - take this or not, I'm not going to commit it - I haven't 
> tested it, nor do I even have any machines that would trigger it. So this 
> is more a "maybe something like this" than anything else.

From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
CC: Ben Dooks <ben-linux@fluff.org>
Cc: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Cc: harvey.harrison@gmail.com
Signed-off-by: NBartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@gmail.com>