On 4/2/07, Gerrit Renker <gerrit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
| > + /* Update loss event rate (scaled by 1e6), cf. RFC 4342, 8.5 */ | > pinv = opt_recv->ccid3or_loss_event_rate; | > - if (pinv == ~0U || pinv == 0) /* see RFC 4342, 8.5 */ | > - hctx->ccid3hctx_p = 0; | > - else /* can not exceed 100% */ | > - hctx->ccid3hctx_p = 1000000 / pinv; | > + hctx->ccid3hctx_p = (pinv == ~0U || pinv == 0)? 0 : scaled_div(1, pinv); | > | | Agree with the scaled_div bit but don't like removing if/then and | repalce withing ?: as harder to read and compiler can optimise just as | well. Matter of personal choice though so up to Arnaldo really. | I could take this patch out if you / Arnaldo think so, since it is overridden later by another patch which uses only one socket field instead of two (p depends on pinv, so having both is redundant).
No leave it in then - it's just a matter of style, not logic.
Please let me be state this - I aim as best as possible to avoid overlap and overriding in later patches. But this is not always possible and - having just spent almost two days integrating away another patch set with my local changesets - can sometimes be a real nightmare. It is not always avoidable when trying to split larger changes into small and separate chunks.
Yes I understand your pain and hope I didn't cause too much of it... -- Web: http://wand.net.nz/~iam4/ Blog: http://iansblog.jandi.co.nz WAND Network Research Group - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe dccp" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
