On Tue, Sep 25, 2007 at 02:20:01AM +0200, roel wrote:
> > > > 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.
I don't see it as being particularly more readable after this change.
In fact, the reverse, as my previous comment implied, I missed the
initial !
Given this code works fine, and there's no discernable gain from
changing it, I'm not particularly enthusiastic about this modification.
Dave
--
http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
-
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]
