[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <505046A5.1050009@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 13:54:05 +0530
From: "Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
CC: nhorman@...driver.com, David.Laight@...lab.com,
john.r.fastabend@...el.com, gaofeng@...fujitsu.com,
eric.dumazet@...il.com, mark.d.rustad@...el.com,
lizefan@...wei.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [v2 PATCH 2/2] netprio_cgroup: Use memcpy instead of the for-loop
to copy priomap
On 09/12/2012 01:19 PM, David Miller wrote:
> From: "Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 11:37:47 +0530
>
>> + memcpy(new_priomap->priomap, old_priomap->priomap,
>> + old_priomap->priomap_len *
>> + sizeof(old_priomap->priomap[0]));
>
> This argument indentation is ridiculous. Try:
>
> memcpy(new_priomap->priomap, old_priomap->priomap,
> old_priomap->priomap_len *
> sizeof(old_priomap->priomap[0]));
>
> Using TABs exclusively for argumentat indentation is not the goal.
>
> Rather, lining the arguments up properly so that they sit at the first
> column after the first line's openning parenthesis is what you should
> be trying to achieve.
OK, will fix it, thanks!
>
> And ignoring whatever stylistic convention we may or may not have, I
> find it impossibly hard to believe that the code quoted above looks
> good even to you.
>
On second thoughts, I think the memcpy in this case will actually be worse
since it will copy the contents in chunks of smaller size than the for-loop.
Or, did you mean to say that this code is plain wrong for some reason?
Regards,
Srivatsa S. Bhat
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists