Dave Jones wrote:
> <excessive quoting trimmed, please don't quote 40K of text
> to add a single line reply>
Ok, sorry, I don't know these rules
> On Tue, Sep 25, 2007 at 12:01:56AM +0200, roel wrote:
>
> > > --- a/arch/i386/kernel/cpu/cpufreq/powernow-k6.c
> > > +++ b/arch/i386/kernel/cpu/cpufreq/powernow-k6.c
> > > @@ -215,7 +215,7 @@ static struct cpufreq_driver powernow_k6
> > > */
> > > static int __init powernow_k6_init(void)
> > > {
> > > - struct cpuinfo_x86 *c = cpu_data;
> > > + struct cpuinfo_x86 *c = &cpu_data(0);
> > >
> > > if ((c->x86_vendor != X86_VENDOR_AMD) || (c->x86 != 5) ||
> > > ((c->x86_model != 12) && (c->x86_model != 13)))
> >
> > while we're at it, we could change this to
> >
> > if (!(c->x86_vendor == X86_VENDOR_AMD && c->x86 == 5 &&
> > (c->x86_model == 12 || c->x86_model == 13)))
>
> For what purpose? There's nothing wrong with the code as it stands,
> and inverting the tests means we'd have to move a bunch of
> code inside the if arm instead of just returning -ENODEV.
It's not inverting the test, so you don't need to move code. It evaluates
the same, only the combined negation is moved to the front. I suggested it
to increase clarity, it results in the same assembly language.
Roel
-
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]
