Messages in this thread | | | From | Kyle Moffett <> | Subject | Re: Linux 2.6.11.6 | Date | Fri, 25 Mar 2005 22:56:39 -0500 |
| |
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/
| |