Dave Jones wrote:
quoted text
> <excessive quoting trimmed, please don't quote 40K of text
>  to add a single line reply>

Ok, sorry, I don't know these rules

quoted text
> 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

-
unsubscribe notice
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/