From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Bob Picco <bob.picco@hp.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 18:01:11 +0000
Subject: Re: [Lhms-devel] [PATCH 4/4] V4 ia64 SPARSEMEM - SPARSEMEM code changes
Message-Id: <20050922180111.GD16066@localhost.localdomain>
List-Id: <linux-ia64.vger.kernel.org>
References: <1127406976.10664.52.camel@localhost>
In-Reply-To: <1127406976.10664.52.camel@localhost>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org

Matthew Wilcox wrote:	[Thu Sep 22 2005, 01:13:40PM EDT]
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2005 at 09:36:16AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> > >  
> > > -	return (i < num_node_memblks) ? node_memblk[i].nid : (num_node_memblks ? -1 : 0);
> > > +	return (i < num_node_memblks) ?
> > > +		node_memblk[i].nid : (num_node_memblks ? -1 : 0);
> > >  }
> > 
> > Looks like just a whitespace change.
> 
> But really far less radical than it deserves ... nested conditional
> expressions?  Come on.  How about:
> 
> 	if (i < num_node_memblks)
> 		return node_memblk[i].nid;
> 	if (num_node_memblks)
> 		return -1;
> 	return 0;
Yup looks better. As I said to Dave, it shouldn't have been introduced. So this
is a nice patch suggestion for clean up but later.


bob