Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 08 Feb 2007 10:53:10 -0500 | From | Bill Davidsen <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2.6.20] isdn-capi: Use ARRAY_SIZE macro when appropriate |
| |
Philippe De Muyter wrote: > On Tue, Feb 06, 2007 at 10:41:30PM +0200, Ahmed S. Darwish wrote: >> On Tue, Feb 06, 2007 at 09:52:17AM -0800, Joe Perches wrote: >>> On Tue, 2007-02-06 at 18:04 +0200, Ahmed S. Darwish wrote: >>>> A patch to use ARRAY_SIZE macro already defined in kernel.h >>>> Signed-off-by: Ahmed S. Darwish <darwish.07@gmail.com> >> [...] >>>> - int nelem = sizeof(procfsentries)/sizeof(procfsentries[0]); >>>> + int nelem = ARRAY_SIZE(procfsentries); >>>> int i; >>>> >>>> for (i=0; i < nelem; i++) { >>> For these patches, perhaps you can eliminate the temporary >>> variable and change the loop to the more common form of >>> >>> for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(array); i++) { >> Thanks, I think it's better too. Here's the modified patch. >> >> A patch to use ARRAY_SIZE macro when appropriate. >> >> Signed-off-by: Ahmed S. Darwish <darwish.07@gmail.com> >> --- >> diff --git a/drivers/isdn/capi/capi.c b/drivers/isdn/capi/capi.c >> index d22c022..87fe89c 100644 >> --- a/drivers/isdn/capi/capi.c >> +++ b/drivers/isdn/capi/capi.c >> @@ -1456,10 +1456,9 @@ static struct procfsentries { >> >> static void __init proc_init(void) >> { >> - int nelem = sizeof(procfsentries)/sizeof(procfsentries[0]); >> int i; >> >> - for (i=0; i < nelem; i++) { >> + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(procfsentries); i++) { >> struct procfsentries *p = procfsentries + i; >> p->procent = create_proc_entry(p->name, p->mode, NULL); >> if (p->procent) p->procent->read_proc = p->read_proc; >> @@ -1468,10 +1467,9 @@ static void __init proc_init(void) >> >> static void __exit proc_exit(void) >> { >> - int nelem = sizeof(procfsentries)/sizeof(procfsentries[0]); >> int i; >> >> - for (i=nelem-1; i >= 0; i--) { >> + for (i = ARRAY_SIZE(procfsentries) - 1; i >= 0; i--) { > > I would write such decrementing loops as : > > for (i = ARRAY_SIZE(procfsentries); --i >= 0; ) { > > Long time ago, that produced better code. I did not check recently though.
Why would you write "--i >= 0" instead of just "i--"? The size of an array can't be negative.
-- Bill Davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com> "We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from the machinations of the wicked." - from Slashdot - 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/
| |