[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1452198530.4028.43.camel@perches.com>
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2016 12:28:50 -0800
From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To: SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
Cc: Robert Richter <rric@...nel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Sunil Goutham <sgoutham@...ium.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
Subject: Re: net-thunder: One check less in nicvf_register_interrupts()
after error detection
On Thu, 2016-01-07 at 21:07 +0100, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> > > * Which object code representations would you find representative
> > > for a further constructive discussion around this
> > > software component?
> >
> > Evidence of actual object code improvement
>
> How do you think about to provide a function implementation
> which looks a bit more efficient by default?
It's not a matter of "looks a bit more efficient".
it's taste, style, and repetition for various functions.
Some prefer that source code be "templatized" regardless
of the number of exit points that any particular use of a
specific function type.
Some of your patches are converting these templatized
functions to a different form for no added value.
These patches make the local source code inconsistent
and generally goes against the authors preferred style.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists