On Wed, 2014-11-26 at 08:42 -0800, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 1:18 AM, Quentin Lambert
> <lambert.quen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Remove if then else statements preceding
> > boolean return.
[]
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c b/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
[]
> > @@ -135,11 +135,9 @@ static const int reg2hex[] = {
> > */
> > static inline bool is_ereg(u32 reg)
> > {
> > - if (reg == BPF_REG_5 || reg == AUX_REG ||
> > - (reg >= BPF_REG_7 && reg <= BPF_REG_9))
> > - return true;
> > - else
> > - return false;
> > + return (reg == BPF_REG_5 ||
> > + reg == AUX_REG ||
> > + (reg >= BPF_REG_7 && reg <= BPF_REG_9));
>
> please remove extra () around the whole expression, and
> align in properly, and
> don't move reg==AUX_REG check to a different line.
> Subject is not warranted. I don't think it's a simplification.
It's not really a simplification,
gcc should emit the same object code.
> imo existing code is fine and I don't think the time spent
> reviewing such changes is worth it when there is no
> improvement in readability.
Is there any value in reordering these tests for frequency
or maybe using | instead of || to avoid multiple jumps?
--
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/
