Em Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 05:45:54PM +0200, Gerrit Renker escreveu:
> | > --- a/include/linux/dccp.h
> | > +++ b/include/linux/dccp.h
> | >
> | > +
> | > +static int dccp_feat_default_value(u8 feat_num)
> | > +{
> | > + int idx = dccp_feat_index(feat_num);
> | > +
> | > + return idx < 0 ? : dccp_feat_table[idx].default_value;
> | > +}
> |
> | [acme@doppio ~]$ cat dd.c
> | #include <stdio.h>
> |
> | int main(void)
> | {
> | int idx = -2;
> |
> | printf("%d\n", idx < 0 ? : 10);
> | printf("%d\n", idx < 0 ? idx : 10);
> | return 0;
> | }
> | [acme@doppio ~]$ ./dd
> | 1
> | -2
> | [acme@doppio ~]$
> |
> | Which one do you want? The boolean result as the value to be returned or
> | the index if it is < 0?
> |
> It is the first value. The test is only there to avoid accessing the
> array with an invalid index, which would happen if an unknown `feat_num'
> is passed - as for unknown features there is no default value.
>
> | I tried to check on the other 4 patches on this series to check if usage
> | clarified if it was correct, but there is no use of
> | dccp_feat_default_value() on this 5 patches, perhaps it could be
> | deferred to when it actually gets used?
> |
> Yes thanks, while I have ensured that all patches are bisectable, a few
> functions may be declared where the logical fit was better. I will place
> it where it is first used, in the patch entitled "dccp: Registration
> routines for changing feature values"
>
> I am waiting before resubmitting - please take a look at patches 3-5 as well.
I looked at the other patches, should be OK.
- Arnaldo
--
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
