lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Mar]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    SubjectRe: Linux 2.6.11.6
    Date
    On Mar 25, 2005, at 22:47, Hua Zhong wrote:
    >> int bt_sock_unregister(int proto)
    >> {
    >> - if (proto >= BT_MAX_PROTO)
    >> + if (proto < 0 || proto >= BT_MAX_PROTO)
    >> return -EINVAL;
    >
    > Just curious: would it be better to say
    >
    > if ((unsigned int)proto >= BT_MAX_PTORO)

    Erm, it _would_ work, but it's _much_ less clear, less typesafe,
    and besides, GCC can probably optimize that test anyways.

    Cheers,
    Kyle Moffett

    -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
    Version: 3.12
    GCM/CS/IT/U d- s++: a18 C++++>$ UB/L/X/*++++(+)>$ P+++(++++)>$
    L++++(+++) E W++(+) N+++(++) o? K? w--- O? M++ V? PS+() PE+(-) Y+
    PGP+++ t+(+++) 5 X R? tv-(--) b++++(++) DI+ D+ G e->++++$ h!*()>++$ r
    !y?(-)
    ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------


    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-04-06 13:30    [W:3.686 / U:0.924 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site