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 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/