Re: [PATCH 5/25] Enforces a minimum interval of 10 milliseconds as per CCID-4 draft

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



2007/11/9, Tommi Saviranta <wnd@xxxxxx>:
> On Thu, Nov 08, 2007 at 11:18:30 +0000, Gerrit Renker wrote:
> > Maybe the code would be clearer to read this way:
> >
> >       hctx->ccid4hctx_t_ipi = scaled_div32(((u64)hctx->ccid4hctx_s) << 6,
> >                                            hctx->ccid4hctx_x));
> >       if (hctx->ccid4hctx_t_ipi <  MIN_SEND_RATE)
> >               hctx->ccid4hctx_t_ipi = MIN_SEND_RATE;
>
> Yes, it would. I was going to ask whether one of them would be
> considered more effective, but I then realised this is probably one of
> those cases where you should write readable code and let the compiler to
> worry about the rest.
>
> -
> 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
>

Yes, I also agree with this.

Leandro.
-
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

[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel]     [IETF DCCP]     [Linux Networking]     [Git]     [Security]     [Linux Assembly]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux