lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Mar]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [patch] x86, mm: Clean up initmem_init

* David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 3 Mar 2011, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>
> > he want
> >
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI_NUMA
> > >> > + ret = numa_init(x86_acpi_numa_init);
> > >> > + if (!ret)
> > >> > + return;
> > >> > +#endif
> > >> > +#ifdef CONFIG_AMD_NUMA
> > >> > + ret = numa_init(amd_numa_init);
> > >> > + if (!ret)
> > >> > + return;
> > >> > +#endif
> >
> > to be replaced by:
> >
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI_NUMA
> > >> > + if (!numa_init(x86_acpi_numa_init))
> > >> > + return;
> > >> > +#endif
> > >> > +#ifdef CONFIG_AMD_NUMA
> > >> > + if (!numa_init(amd_numa_init))
> > >> > + return;
> > >> > +#endif
>
> It's a matter of style and I think it's up to Ingo what he'd prefer to
> see.

I think your variant is cleaner: hiding function call side-effects in conditionscan
be a fragile thing to do. We want constant expressions with no side-effects - so if
functions are called they should be constant functions as well.

Code compactness isn't everything - if it was we'd be using C to the max to create
unreadable compound expressions all the time.

Thanks,

Ingo


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-03-04 08:11    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans