Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 25 Sep 2007 02:20:01 +0200 | From | roel <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/1] x86: Convert cpuinfo_x86 array to a per_cpu array v3 |
| |
Dave Jones wrote: > <excessive quoting trimmed, please don't quote 40K of text > to add a single line reply>
Ok, sorry, I don't know these rules
> On Tue, Sep 25, 2007 at 12:01:56AM +0200, roel wrote: > > > > --- a/arch/i386/kernel/cpu/cpufreq/powernow-k6.c > > > +++ b/arch/i386/kernel/cpu/cpufreq/powernow-k6.c > > > @@ -215,7 +215,7 @@ static struct cpufreq_driver powernow_k6 > > > */ > > > static int __init powernow_k6_init(void) > > > { > > > - struct cpuinfo_x86 *c = cpu_data; > > > + struct cpuinfo_x86 *c = &cpu_data(0); > > > > > > 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.
Roel
- 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/
| |