On Thu, 2006-04-13 at 11:38 +0300, Denis Vlasenko wrote:
> On Thursday 13 April 2006 04:24, Dave Dillow wrote:
> > Regardless, I remain opposed to this particular instance of bloat
> > busting. While both patches have improved in style, they remove a useful
> > feature and make the code less clea
On Thursday 13 April 2006 04:24, Dave Dillow wrote:
> Regardless, I remain opposed to this particular instance of bloat
> busting. While both patches have improved in style, they remove a useful
> feature and make the code less clean, for no net gain.
What happened to non-modular build? "no net
Ingo Oeser wrote:
Dave Dillow: Is this style clean enough to have it in your driver?
Though I'm not real fond of Denis's last patch, I think I prefer it's
style to this, solely because it removes more code when VLANs are
disabled -- you've left the spin_locks in, and have more #ifdefs.
Rega
From: Ben Greear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 13:10:06 -0700
> What is the reasoning for this change? Is the compiler
> able to optomize the right-hand-side to a constant with your
> change in place?
>
> > - if (veth->h_vlan_proto != __constant_htons(ETH_P_8021Q)) {
> > + if (v
On Wed, 12 Apr 2006 13:10:06 -0700
Ben Greear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What is the reasoning for this change? Is the compiler
> able to optomize the right-hand-side to a constant with your
> change in place?
>
> > - if (veth->h_vlan_proto != __constant_htons(ETH_P_8021Q)) {
> > + if (vet
What is the reasoning for this change? Is the compiler
able to optomize the right-hand-side to a constant with your
change in place?
- if (veth->h_vlan_proto != __constant_htons(ETH_P_8021Q)) {
+ if (veth->h_vlan_proto != htons(ETH_P_8021Q)) {
return -EINVAL;
Hi Denis,
here is a sample patch for the vlan core and API plus
typhoon driver converted as example.
Just so you can see, what I meant with "No #if in control flow code."
I couldn't resist cleaning up the vlan core, while I'm at it.
Of course I can seperate this, if you want the pure unilining
