> | > | > --- a/include/linux/dccp.h
> | > | > +++ b/include/linux/dccp.h
> | > | >
> | > | > +
> | > | > +static int dccp_feat_default_value(u8 feat_num)
> | > | > +{
> | > | > + int idx = dccp_feat_index(feat_num);
> | > | > +
> | > | > + return idx < 0 ? : dccp_feat_table[idx].default_value;
> | > | > +}
> <snip>
> | > |
> | > It is the first value. The test is only there to avoid accessing the
> | > array with an invalid index, which would happen if an unknown `feat_num'
> | > is passed - as for unknown features there is no default value.
> |
> | The above explanation would be good to have as a comment, as it was not
> | so obvious from a first sight. I think that even having it explicit
> | would be clearer:
> |
> | return idx < 0 ? 1 : dccp_feat_table[idx].default_value;
> |
> | But then, if an unknown feat num is passed shouldn't the code bailout in
> | some other fashion than returning the result of a boolean expression and
> | not accessing the defaults table?
> |
> Yes thank you. It is necessary to check this, since only in the current
> state of code the use of the function is consistent. If the code gets
> changed later on then there will be no warning.
>
> I have worked on this function yesterday evening with regard to above
> feedback. If you could either check again when the patch is submitted
> later, or have a look at the online version in the test tree on
>
http://eden-feed.erg.abdn.ac.uk/cgi-bin/gitweb.cgi?p=dccp_exp.git;a=commitdiff;h=b0708...
