On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 11:34:06PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > Quoting r. Libor Michalek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Subject: Re: [PATCH] sdp conditional code cleanup > > > > On Sun, Feb 27, 2005 at 12:44:41PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > Quoting r. Libor Michalek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > On Thu, Feb 24, 2005 at 11:49:28PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > > OK, now what about things like these: > > > > > > > > > > if (0 > result) { > > > > > > > > > > may I change them all to > > > > > > > > > > if (result < 0) { > > > > > > > > > > While being equivalent, we are testing the result, not 0. > > > > > > > > > > Similiarly (although I feel somewhat less strongly about it) > > > > > > > > > > if (0 == result) > > > > > and > > > > > if (NULL == conn) > > > > > > > > > > are better off as > > > > > > > > > > if (!result) { > > > > > and > > > > > if (!conn) > > > > > > > > > > C is a Spartan language, and this is more brief. > > > > > Libor, I think I asked about the second one, but dont recall you > > > > > answering. > > > > > If OK to both, let me know and I'll do it on Sunday. > > > > > > > > I actually feel more strongly in favour of making the second change > > > > you propose then the first. However, I'm OK with both, so feel free > > > > to submit a patch. > > > > > > Here is the patch. > > > > > > I generalized the approach - > > > any if (CONSTANT == variable) and if ( CONSTANT & variable) is now > > > if (variable == CONSTANT) and if ( variable & CONSTANT) > > > and so forth. > > > > > > Further, some places had weird flag testing code like this: > > > if ( (variable & CONSTANT) > 0 ) > > > > > > I changed them all to > > > > > > if (variable & CONSTANT) > > > > > > Two things I noticed but did not fix: > > > > > > A. In some places a positive error code is returned. For example > > > ENOBUF and not -ENOBUF. I assume its a bug but did not touch it. > > > > I'm glad you did not change this, it's not a bug. In parts of both > > the send and recv data paths positive and negative returns have different > > meaning. negative return is a hard error, while positive return is used > > to indicate that the data path is in a flow control situation and that > > the action will need to be retried later. Zero as usual means success. > > > > > Looks like a lot of changes, I went over them several times and > > > everything looks in order to me. I really hope its applied before > > > any other change, it almost surely will conflict with any other > > > patch, and it'll be a lot of work to re-diff. > > > > I found a few problem spots that I fixed up, before commiting > > the code. The third problem was in an #if 0, so it wasn't an > > immediate issue. Thanks. > > Here is a small number of additional swaps I missed on the first pass.
Thanks, applied and commited. -Libor _______________________________________________ openib-general mailing list openib-general@openib.org http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general