On 09/12/2012 01:54 PM, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote: > On 09/12/2012 01:19 PM, David Miller wrote: >> From: "Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.b...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> >> Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 11:37:47 +0530 >> >>> + memcpy(new_priomap->priomap, old_priomap->priomap, >>> + old_priomap->priomap_len * >>> + sizeof(old_priomap->priomap[0])); >> >> This argument indentation is ridiculous. Try: >> >> memcpy(new_priomap->priomap, old_priomap->priomap, >> old_priomap->priomap_len * >> sizeof(old_priomap->priomap[0])); >> >> Using TABs exclusively for argumentat indentation is not the goal. >> >> Rather, lining the arguments up properly so that they sit at the first >> column after the first line's openning parenthesis is what you should >> be trying to achieve. > > OK, will fix it, thanks! > >> >> And ignoring whatever stylistic convention we may or may not have, I >> find it impossibly hard to believe that the code quoted above looks >> good even to you. >> > > On second thoughts, I think the memcpy in this case will actually be worse > since it will copy the contents in chunks of smaller size than the for-loop.
Oops, I missed the __HAVE_ARCH_MEMCPY and was looking at the wrong memcpy implementation.. And in any case, I went totally off-track by your last comment. I hadn't realized that you were still referring to the way the code looks, rather than questioning the switch to memcpy. Sorry about that! I'll fix the odd-looking indentation and repost the patch. Regards, Srivatsa S. Bhat -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
