From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Srivatsa S. Bhat" Subject: Re: [v2 PATCH 2/2] netprio_cgroup: Use memcpy instead of the for-loop to copy priomap Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 15:53:24 +0530 Message-ID: <5050629C.8010204@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <20120912060741.11037.37347.stgit@srivatsabhat.in.ibm.com> <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=ISO-8859-1 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: David Miller Return-path: In-Reply-To: <505046A5.1050009@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On 09/12/2012 01:54 PM, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote: > On 09/12/2012 01:19 PM, David Miller wrote: >> From: "Srivatsa S. Bhat" >> 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. Oops, I missed the __HAVE_ARCH_MEMCPY and was looking at the wrong memcpy implementation.. And in any case, I went totally off-track by your last comment. I hadn't realized that you were still referring to the way the code looks, rather than questioning the switch to memcpy. Sorry about that! I'll fix the odd-looking indentation and repost the patch. Regards, Srivatsa S. Bhat