Sebastien Roy wrote:
> Garrett D'Amore wrote:
>>> * 2583-2589: I don't understand the need for the cascading chain of
>>> if statements here. This isn't much of an improvement over the
>>> previous code, and the indentation is still not cstyle compliant.
>>> It could be simplified to:
>>>
>>> if ((GET_ROM8(&(hmep->hme_romp[i])) & 0xff) == 'P' &&
>>> (GET_ROM8(&(hmep->hme_romp[i+1])) & 0xff) == 'C' &&
>>> (GET_ROM8(&(hmep->hme_romp[i+2])) & 0xff) == 'I' &&
>>> (GET_ROM8(&(hmep->hme_romp[i+3])) & 0xff) == 'R') {
>>> vpd_base =
>>> (int)((GET_ROM8(&(hmep->hme_romp[i+8])) & 0xff) |
>>> (GET_ROM8(&(hmep->hme_romp[i+9])) & 0xff) << 8);
>>> break; /* VPD pointer found */
>>> }
>>>
>>
>> Accept. Apart from the Cstyle indentation (which admittedly is
>> weird, but it was weird before I touched it), there isn't really any
>> runtime difference. The code actually passes cstyle -cPp as it
>> stands. (What I did was make the minimal changes needed to pass
>> Cstyle. I didn't want to get into restructuring code too much...
>> otherwise there are far far worse places in this code.) I'm changing
>> it anyway. (I think I did it this way when I made the same change in
>> eri.)
>
> Also note that my suggested change also includes comparing ascii
> characters with ... get this ... ascii characters! :-) Go figure.
> The hex values with little comments explaining which ascii characters
> they mapped to was an especially nice touch in the old code. :-)
Heh. Yeah. I made the same change in eri.c IIRC. When hme I took a
more conservative approach in my changes than I did in eri.
-- Garrett
>
> -Seb
_______________________________________________
networking-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
