Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 27 Apr 2011 22:38:01 +0300 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] linux/string.h: Introduce streq macro. | From | Pekka Enberg <> |
| |
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 10:16 PM, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote: > On Wed, 2011-04-27 at 21:51 +0300, Pekka Enberg wrote: > >> It's the same kind of API extension kstrdup(), for example, is. >> Whether or not we should it do it is a separate matter and I think the >> only reasonable argument for and against is whether it (a) reduces the >> number of bugs, > > I did a quick search through the git logs, and found no bug fixes due to > the semantics. At least by the time it got to mainline, they are fixed > (which is a good thing). > > >> (b) improves code readability significantly, > > This is a matter of preference. I think I would prefer it, but obviously > others do not. > > >> or (c) >> generates better code. > > If we implement streq() separately from strcmp() it gets slightly > better:
We'd probably end up with both in the tree, though, which is not an improvement. With kstrdup(), for example, we were able to move code out-of-line which improved the whole kernel.
To be honest, I don't think the arguments for streq() are that strong but I wanted to point out that the arguments against it weren't all that great either...
Pekka -- 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/
| |