Strongly agreed that execution speed is not critical here. It's the update of
a proc variable, not a tight loop or critical section.
Normally I'd leave it alone, but since you're writing a patch anyway, I'd do
'tolower' myself. I dislike the stacked case statements on a single line like
that. (It's the only time I've seen them written that way. Perhaps it's
common and I've just missed it.)
Regards,
- Patrick
________________________________________
From: HPDD-discuss [hpdd-discuss-boun...@lists.01.org] on behalf of Joe Perches
[j...@perches.com]
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 5:53 PM
To: Rickard Strandqvist
Cc: de...@driverdev.osuosl.org; Fabian Frederick; Julia Lawall; James Simmons;
Greg Kroah-Hartman; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; Greg Donald;
hpdd-disc...@lists.01.org; Andriy Skulysh
Subject: Re: [HPDD-discuss] [PATCH] staging: lustre: lustre: obdclass:
lprocfs_status.c: Fix for possible null pointer dereference
On Mon, 2014-12-15 at 23:23 +0100, Rickard Strandqvist wrote:
> Hi Joe
Hello Rickard
> No, it does not look like end can be NULL then.
> Then remove the end != NULL instead?
> ...
> if (end != NULL && *end == '.') {
Up to you.
> However, I am hesitant to the tolower() I think double case is faster...?
I doubt code execution speed is paramount here.
Maybe see if the object code size is smaller one
way or the other.
_______________________________________________
HPDD-discuss mailing list
hpdd-disc...@lists.01.org
https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/hpdd-discuss
--
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/
