Messages in this thread | | | From | Daniel Phillips <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1b/7] dlm: core locking | Date | Mon, 25 Apr 2005 21:34:48 -0400 |
| |
On Monday 25 April 2005 18:27, Nikita Danilov wrote: > > > > + > > > > +static int is_remote(struct dlm_rsb *r) > > > > +{ > > > > + DLM_ASSERT(r->res_nodeid >= 0, dlm_print_rsb(r);); > > > > + return r->res_nodeid ? TRUE : FALSE; > > > > +} > > > > > > This can be simply > > > > > > return r->res_nodeid; > > > > Not quite the same. Perhaps you meant: > > > > return !!r->res_nodeid; > > Strictly speaking yes (assuming TRUE is defined as 1), but name > is_remote() implies usages like > > if (is_remote(r)) { > do_something(); > } > > in such contexts !! is not necessary.
Any objection to making it inline and let the compiler delete the redundant code? The princple is: it's better to spell out "!!" when that's intended, rather than build in a nasty surprise for later. The inline code will be smaller than a function call anyway.
Regards,
Daniel - 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/
| |