From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Subject: Re: [v2 PATCH 2/2] netprio_cgroup: Use memcpy instead of the
 for-loop to copy priomap
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 13:58:44 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <20120912.135844.2128028507911988895.davem@davemloft.net>
References: <20120912060747.11037.42623.stgit@srivatsabhat.in.ibm.com>
	<20120912.034901.184817520125489015.davem@davemloft.net>
	<505046A5.1050009@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: nhorman@tuxdriver.com, David.Laight@aculab.com,
	john.r.fastabend@intel.com, gaofeng@cn.fujitsu.com,
	eric.dumazet@gmail.com, mark.d.rustad@intel.com,
	lizefan@huawei.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
To: srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <505046A5.1050009@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org

From: "Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 13:54:05 +0530

> On 09/12/2012 01:19 PM, David Miller wrote:
>> From: "Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>> Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 11:37:47 +0530
>> 
>>> +		memcpy(new_priomap->priomap, old_priomap->priomap,
>>> +			old_priomap->priomap_len *
>>> +					sizeof(old_priomap->priomap[0]));
>> 
>> This argument indentation is ridiculous.  Try:
>> 
>> 		memcpy(new_priomap->priomap, old_priomap->priomap,
>> 		       old_priomap->priomap_len *
>> 		       sizeof(old_priomap->priomap[0]));
>> 
>> Using TABs exclusively for argumentat indentation is not the goal.
>> 
>> Rather, lining the arguments up properly so that they sit at the first
>> column after the first line's openning parenthesis is what you should
>> be trying to achieve.
> 
> OK, will fix it, thanks!
> 
>> 
>> And ignoring whatever stylistic convention we may or may not have, I
>> find it impossibly hard to believe that the code quoted above looks
>> good even to you.
>>
> 
> On second thoughts, I think the memcpy in this case will actually be worse
> since it will copy the contents in chunks of smaller size than the for-loop.

I meant just coding style wise, not semantically.