Re: [PATCH] sal cleanup

Randy.Dunlap
2004-02-27T21:48:50Z

On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 20:25:05 +0000 Matthew Wilcox wrote:

| On Fri, Feb 27, 2004 at 11:33:36AM -0800, David Mosberger wrote:
| > Sounds good to me. The extra blank kills me though... ;-)
|
| Weeeeeelllllllll.... if you're not allergic to trigraphs,
|
| printk(KERN_INFO "SAL %d.%d: %.32s %.32s%sversion %d.%d\n",
| sal_rev_major, sal_rev_minor, systab->oem_id,
| systab->product_id, systab->product_id[0] ? " " : "",
| sal_b_rev_major, sal_b_rev_minor);
|
| does the trick nicely ;-)
|
| I'll send a patch when you've come to a decision about how you want the
| SAL revision comparison to look -- it all touches the same area of code.

Where's the trigraph???

A conditional operator ("?:") [section 6.5.15 of C99 spec.]
does not make a 'trigraph'.

Conditional operators are fine IMO, so long as the gcc extension of
"omitted second operand implies repeat the first operand" is not used... :)
This is ugly and prone to mistakes.

--
~Randy