From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 20:31:27 -0400 From: Dave Jones Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] x86: Convert cpuinfo_x86 array to a per_cpu array v3 Message-ID: <20070925003127.GQ11455@redhat.com> References: <20070924210853.256462000@sgi.com> <20070924210853.516791000@sgi.com> <46F833D4.8050507@tiscali.nl> <20070924232423.GJ8127@redhat.com> <46F85431.1020306@tiscali.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <46F85431.1020306@tiscali.nl> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: roel <12o3l@tiscali.nl> Cc: travis@sgi.com, Andrew Morton , Andi Kleen , Christoph Lameter , Jack Steiner , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 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, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org