On Tue, Sep 25, 2007 at 02:20:01AM +0200, roel wrote:
 
 > >  > >  	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.

I don't see it as being particularly more readable after this change.
In fact, the reverse, as my previous comment implied, I missed the
initial !
Given this code works fine, and there's no discernable gain from
changing it, I'm not particularly enthusiastic about this modification.

	Dave

-- 
http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
-
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/