On Wed, Jul 05, 2006 at 10:02:45PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Siddha, Suresh B <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > - if (sd && sd->flags & flag)
> > + if (sd && !(sd->flags & flag))
>
> use test_sd_flag() here, as i did in my fix patch.
>
> > -#define test_sd_flag(sd, flag) ((sd && sd->flags & flag) ? 1 : 0)
> > +#define test_sd_flag(sd, flag) ((sd && (sd->flags & flag)) ? 1 : 0)
>
> remove the 'sd' check in test_sd_flag. In the other cases we know that
> there's an sd. (it's usually a sign of spaghetti code if tests like this
> include a check for the existence of the object checked)
In other cases, we are passing sd->parent as the first argument to
test_sd_flag(). We know that there is a 'sd' but not sure about sd->parent or
sd->child.
thanks,
suresh
-
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/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
