loop cleanup in lib/prio_tree.c

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]>
---

index ccfd850..d56880f 100644
@@ -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;
+ }
}